MEHROTRA, C. J. : The petitioner Shri Khanindra Chandra Barua joined the Assam Civil Service (Senior) as Extra Assistant Commissioner on 24-4-1930. In 1942 he was appointed the Deputy Commissioner in the district of Nowgong and was paid Rs. 1275/- per month. In March 1946 the petitioner I was the Sub-Divisional Officer at Barpeta. On the 15th August, 1947 he was promoted to the post of Labour Commissioner. The petitioner was the first person to be selected and appointed as the Labour Commissioner, Assam on the 15th August, 1947. The petitioner was paid the pay of his grade with Rs. 200/- as his special pay. The petitioner was appointed the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara and joined his post as such on the 17th April, 1948. Sri Mallik was appointed the Labour Commissioner and relieve the petitioner on the 8th April, 1948. It was decided that the post should be treated as a superior post in the I.C. S. cadre and Sri Mallik was paid in the senior I.C. S. scale. In April 1948 the petitioner was appointed the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara and the Accountant General issued a pay slip for Rs. 950/- only. By a letter dated the 7th March, 1951 the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam informed the petitioner that the Government regret­ted their inability to allow him pay in the senior scale ;for the period he held the post of the Labour Commis­sioner as he was not due for superior post then. He was further informed by this letter that his pay on the date of his appointment as Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara and on the date he was appointed to the I. A. S. was correctly ' fixed by the Comptroller, Assam at Rs. 950/- P.M. and Rs. 1000/- P. M. respectively. The petitioner made seve­ral representations against this order and on the 15th September, 1960 the Government of Assam sanctioned the creation of a temporary post of Labour Commissioner, Assam at a fixed salary of Rs. 1270/- for the period from 15th August, 1947 to 16th April, 1948 and the petitioner was thus entitled to get salary at that rate during the period he worked as the Labour Commissioner. 1270/- for the period from 15th August, 1947 to 16th April, 1948 and the petitioner was thus entitled to get salary at that rate during the period he worked as the Labour Commissioner. This fixa­tion of pay was stated by the Government to have no relation to the senior I.C.S. or I.A.S. scales of pay and the petitioner was to have no claim for refixation of his pay either in the A.C.S. or I.A.S. cadre. The petitioner thereafter made the present petition on the 27th April, 1961. (2) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Government and has contended that according to the circular of the Government of India the petitioner was entitled to,' draw pay in the senior I.C.S. scale as he was holding a 'superior post in the senior I.C.S. scale before the 6th March, 1948 and according to that he was entitled to get a salary of Rs. 1,275/-. The Government of Assam was not right in fixing a fixed salary of Rs. 1270/- for the period he worked as the Labour Commissioner. The petitioner has urged that when he was working as a Labour Commissioner he held a superior post. In effect he has ' also claimed refixation of his salary subsequently equivalent to the senior I.C.S. post. (3) In the counter-affidavits it is denied that the post of Labour Commissioner was a superior post in the I.C.S. cadre. Mainly the contention of the opposite parties thus is that the petitioner was not entitled to draw a salary in the senior scale of the I.C.S. by holding the post of Labour Commissioner. (4) In the counter-affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam it is stated that till the 15tti August, 1947 there was no separate post of Labour Com­missioner, Assam. There used to be a Controller of immigrant Labour for Assam. This post was held by a senior officer of the Central Government and the said officer used also to discharge the responsibilities of Labour Commis­sioner for which he was paid a special pay of Rs. 200/-per month. On the 15th August, 1947 the post of Labour Commissioner was separated and a new post was created. At that time no separate pay scale was sanctioned for this post and when the petitioner was appointed as the Labour Commissioner from 15th August, 1947, he was given his grade pay of Rs. 200/-per month. On the 15th August, 1947 the post of Labour Commissioner was separated and a new post was created. At that time no separate pay scale was sanctioned for this post and when the petitioner was appointed as the Labour Commissioner from 15th August, 1947, he was given his grade pay of Rs. 650/- in the Assam Civil Service plus a special pay of Rs. 200/- per month. On the 1st December, ,1947, the Government took a decision for the creation of ,the whole-time post of Labour Commissioner as a class I post in the Provincial cadre and as the petitioner had held this post till the 8th April, 1948 the petitioner was ap­pointed to hold another class I post in the State Government. On the 15th August, 1947 when the petitioner was appointed to the post of Labour Commissioner, he was not the senior-most member of the Assam Civil Service. On the 8th April, 1948 Shri Mallick relieved the petitioner as labour Commissioner. But there was no decision taken by the Government to treat the post as a superior post in ,the I. C. S. cadre. It is categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that neither at that time nor at any time there­after was the post of Labour Commissioner included in the cadre of I.C.S. or I.A.S. and the Pay Committee fixed the pay scale of Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1100/- for the post of the Labour Commissioner, which was intended to be an ex-cadre post outside the cadre of I.C.S. or A.C.S. As Shri Mallick was appointed in the meantime to hold this post, he had to carry on till the appointment of the Labour Commissioner in the new scale. At that time there was a proposal to post Shri Mallick to Cachar District as its Settlement Officer and if so posted, he would be entitled to the senior scale of pay in the I.C.S. But as he could dot be spared for that purpose and was asked to continue as the Labour Commissioner, it was considered that it would not be fair to deprive him of the pay, that would have been due to him if posted as the Settlement Officer, Cachar. It was on these considerations that Shri Mallick had to be given the pay of Rs. 1000/- P.M. as being due to him. It was on these considerations that Shri Mallick had to be given the pay of Rs. 1000/- P.M. as being due to him. It cannot be said that some months after Shri Mallick had joined the post or at any time thereafter, the government decided by a resolution to treat this post as & superior post in the I.C.S. cadre. It is further alleged that the representation of the petitioner sent to the Gov­ernment was turned down by the Government of India on the ground that the petitioner had no claim to pay in the senior I.C.S. scale. In paragraph 15 of the said counter-affidavit it is further stated that in the year 1951 the Government of Assam had recorded the view that the peti­tioner was not due to be considered for a senior post on the 15th August, 1947 and that he had no legal claim to any senior post. The Government however felt that having thereafter recommended to the Government of India ' to treat the petitioner as officiating against a senior post from 15-8-1947, they had a moral responsibility in the matter and accordingly in exercise of their own power, they created a temporary post of Labour Commissioner, Assam at the fixed salary of Rs. 1270/- outside the I.C.S. or the I.A.S. scale of pay, for the period the petitioner was holding the post of the Labour Commissioner, (5) The petitioner was selected for appointment to the I.A.S. by a Special Recruitment Board in 1949 and he made certain representation to the Central Government for fixation of his salary in the I.A.S. grade, it is not dis­puted that the Central Government had decided that only those who were holding superior posts in the senior I.C.S. scale since before the 6th March, 1948 would be entitled to draw pay in the senior I.C.S. scale. The petitioner contends that he was holding a superior post in the senior 'scale and thus he was entitled to the fixation of his pay in the senior I.C.S. scale. According to the petitioner under Rule 16 (2) of the Appointments and Allowances rules of Gazetted and other officers in Assam he was entitled to the senior I.C.S. scale during the period when he was working as a Labour Commissioner. According to the petitioner under Rule 16 (2) of the Appointments and Allowances rules of Gazetted and other officers in Assam he was entitled to the senior I.C.S. scale during the period when he was working as a Labour Commissioner. So far as the fixation (Of his pay on his appointment in the I.A.S. is concerned, the matter has been finally decided by the Central Govern­ment. The contention of the petitioner is that the State .Government should have given him pay in the senior I.C.S. scale during the period when he worked as a Labour Com­missioner as he was holding a superior post. (6) In the counter-affidavits it is categorically denied that at any stage the State Government treated the post of the Labour Commissioner as equivalent to a post in the senior I.C.S. scale. The petitioner thus can be entitl­ed to the relief only on the finding that the post of the Labour Commissioner was declared to be equivalent to a post in the senior I.C.S. scale. This is a question of fact and this court under Article 226 of the Constitution .is not the proper forum for decision of such a ques­tion. (7) Dr. Medhi for the petitioner relied upon certain circumstances and the statement prepared by the State Government for submission to the Pay Committee to show that this post was treated to be equivalent to a post in the senior I.C.S. scale and further that this post was all along held by officers who were drawing a salary in the senior I.C.S. scale. All that is in the nature of evidence in support of the contention raised by the petitioner that the Labour Commissioner's post was declared to be a post in the senior I.C.S. scale and thus the question whe­ther the petitioner was holding a superior post is a ques­tion of fact and cannot be decided in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. (8) The fact that the petitioner was holding a superior post in the senior I.C.S. scale may give the petitioner double benefit. On that basis he may claim that he was in the senior I.C.S. scale and the pay which he actually drew was a provisional pay. (8) The fact that the petitioner was holding a superior post in the senior I.C.S. scale may give the petitioner double benefit. On that basis he may claim that he was in the senior I.C.S. scale and the pay which he actually drew was a provisional pay. A declaration given to him that he was holding the superior post during the period he worked as the Labour Commissioner may entitle him to get his pay in the I.A.S. fixed on that basis. Apart from the question that the matter involves determination of disputed questions of fact, in my opinion if the peti­tioner claims that he was paid salary less than what he was entitled to during the period when he worked as the Labour Commissioner, his claim relates to a matter prior to the date when the Constitution came into force and he cannot get any remedy under Article 226 of the Constitu­tion in respect of the said period. The Constitution can­not be given a retrospective effect. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, reported in 1958 SCR 595 : ( AIR 1958 SC 86 ). The argument of Dr. Medhi is that the order of the State Government dated the 15th September, I960 is the final order and thus the relief which he is seeking under Article 226 of the Constitution is not in respect of proceedings prior to the Constitution. I do not think that there is any force in this contention. The letter of the Government dated the 15th September, 1960 is an adminis­trative order and no writ of certiorari can lie to quash that order. The petitioner is not claiming any mandamus not to give effect to that order inasmuch as he does not disclaim the salary fixed under the aforesaid order. If a mandamus is issued giving effect to that order, the order has to be given effect to as a whole. The order clearly states that the payment of Rs. 1270/- to him gives him no right to claim that the post he was holding entitled him to a salary in the I.C.S. scale. In effect he is there­fore, seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the pre-Constitution period. The order clearly states that the payment of Rs. 1270/- to him gives him no right to claim that the post he was holding entitled him to a salary in the I.C.S. scale. In effect he is there­fore, seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the pre-Constitution period. The question whether the letter of the 15th September, 1960 will give him any cause of action in a suit is not a matter before us. In any view of the matter the petition has no force and it should be rejected. The rule is accordingly dis­charged but in the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs. (9) S. K. DUTTA, J.: I agree. FF/M/K.S.B. Rule discharged.