DUTTA, C. J.: The case of the petitioner Shri Bhuban Chandra Dutta in this "writ petition is as follows:- He was re­cruited as a Munsiff from the Bar and after serving in various capacities became an Additional District Judge and then Registrar of the High Court. After retire­ment, he was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam and when he was still holding that post, lie was selected by the Chief Justice for appointment as Registrar of the High Court. Accordingly the petitioner was released from his post of Presiding Offi­cer by a notification dated the 26th April 1967 which said as follows: "Shillong, Dated the 26th April, 1967. No. GLR. 337/66/22. - Shri B. C. Dutta, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Assam, Gauhati, is released from the Labour Department with effect from the date he makes over charge to enable him to join the new assignment in the Hon'ble High Court. Sd. S. J, Das. Secretary to the Government ofAssam, Labour Department." On being so released the petitioner was appointed as the Registrar of the High Court and the following two notifications dated 28-4-67 were published in the Assam Gazette of 17-5-67. "The 28th April, 1967. No. HC. V-46/67/2824/A/Estt- In exer­cise of the powers conferred by Art. 229 of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 7 (1) of the Assam and Nagaland High Court Services (Appointment, Condi­tions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland is pleased to appoint Shri Bhuban Chandra Dutta, B. L., at present Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Gauhati as the Regis­trar of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland with effect from the forenoon of 1st May, 1967 vice Shri S. C. Barua, whose services are replaced with the Gov­ernor of Assam for posting as District Judge in the regular cadre of District Judges. Sd. U. N. Rajkhowa, Deputy Registrar, High Court of Assam and Nagaland." "The 28th April, 1967 No. HC. V-46/67/2824/B/Estt. Sd. U. N. Rajkhowa, Deputy Registrar, High Court of Assam and Nagaland." "The 28th April, 1967 No. HC. V-46/67/2824/B/Estt. - In exer­cise of the powers conferred by Art. 229 of the Constitution of India and of Rules 7 and 13 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court Services (Appointment, Con­ditions of Service and Conduct Rules, 1967, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland is pleased to fix the following terms and conditions of services of Shri Bhuban Chandra Dutta, B. L., who has been ap­pointed as the Registrar of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland as per High Court Notification No. HC. V-46/67/ 2824/A/Estt. dated 28th April 1967- (1) He shall be entitled to draw an initial pay of Rs. 1,500/- per mensem less the pension, if any, he has been drawing from the Government. (2) He shall, in addition to his initial pay of Rs. 1,500/- be entitled to draw a special pay of Rs. 250/- per mensem admissible under the said Rules to the Registrar of the High Court. (3) He shall hold the appointment of the Registrar of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland for a minimum period of two years in the first instance. This period may, however, be extended as con­sidered suitable and necessary, by the Hon'ble Chief Justice who happens to be in office at the time of the expiry of this period of two years. Sd. U. N. Rajkhowa, Deputy Registrar, High Court of Assam and Nagaland." 2. In pursuance of the above notifica­tions, the petitioner took over charge as the Registrar of the High Court in the forenoon of the 1st May, 1967 and sub­mitted the charge report to the Accoun­tant-General, Assam. But in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner who sent several reminders by letters and telegrams, the Accountant-General did not issue any pay-slip to him. On the 25th July, 1968, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court under the direction of the Chief Justice, wrote to the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Law Department to instruct the Accountant-General to issue provisional pay-slip to the petitioner for Rs. 1500/- as pay plus special pay of Rs. 250/-. On the 25th July, 1968, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court under the direction of the Chief Justice, wrote to the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Law Department to instruct the Accountant-General to issue provisional pay-slip to the petitioner for Rs. 1500/- as pay plus special pay of Rs. 250/-. Accordingly the Finance Department wrote to the Ac­countant-General as follows on the 31st July 1968: "I am directed to say that the Regis­trar of the High Court, Assam and Naga­land is reported to have not received his pay for the last one year thereby putting him to great financial difficulties, and to request you kindly to issue at least a provisional pay-slip in his favour. Yours faithfully, Sd. D. S. Khongdup, Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Deptt." 3. Thereafter on the 2nd August 1968, the Accountant-General issued a provi­sional pay-slip for the period from 1-5-67 to 31-10-67 authorising the petitioner to draw a sum of Rs. 870.05 only per month as provisional pay. The special pay of Rs. 250 was not included in the pay-slip. As the pay-slip was not in con­formity with the terms of his appoint­ment, the petitioner did not draw his pay on it. Another pay-slip was issued on 26-12-68 authorising the petitioner to draw the above amount from 1st Novem­ber 1967 to the 31st December 1968. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the Accountant-General is bound to Issue a pay-slip authorising him to draw his salary at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month minus his pension and plus a special pay of Rs. 250/- per month as per terms of his appointment. 5. The contention of the Government is as follows: The rules relating to pay, allowance, pen­sion or leave (hereinafter called the financial rules) in the Assam High Court Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules 1961 and also in the Assam an& Nagaland High Court Services (Appoint­ment, Conditions of Service and Conduct Rule, 1967 are invalid as no approval oft the Governor was given to the said Rules. The financial rules in the Assam High Court Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1956) are still in force. The-Rules of 1967 were published in October, 1967 only. As reference to these Rules; was made in the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 28-4-67, his appoint­ment is void ab initio. The financial rules in the Assam High Court Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1956) are still in force. The-Rules of 1967 were published in October, 1967 only. As reference to these Rules; was made in the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 28-4-67, his appoint­ment is void ab initio. The Accountant General had no authority to issue the pay-slip on the basis of the notification, fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rupees 1500/- per month minus pension and a special pay of Rs. 250/- per month, in the absence of any specific sanction from the Government. 6. The Government also asserts that it was pointed out to the High Court that the appointment should be on the basis of a contract and not under the notifica­tion. As a matter of fact, the petitioner asked for an approved form for contract. Then the Deputy Registrar wrote by a letter No. 4561 dated 16-9-67 to the Gov­ernment that the petitioner might be ap­pointed on a monthly pay of Rs. 1500/-on contract basis in modification of the-appointment made by the Chief Justice under the notification of 28-4-67. As the execution of the contract was likely to take time, the request for provisional pay-slip was made. Thus the Chief Jus­tice did not agree to the special pay of Rs. 250 per month. The Chief Minister by a D. O. letter dated the 4th March 1968, pointed out to the Chief Justice the difficulty of allowing Rs. 1500/- as the basic pay. Under a Rule in the Assam Pension Manual, on re-employment, person could not draw a higher salary than his last pay minus pension. The last pay of the petitioner was only Rupees. 1150/-After that there was a series of correspondence between the Chief Minis­ter and the Chief Justice and before a» final decision was taken, the writ peti­tion was filed. 7. The case of the Accountant-Gene­ral is that the Chief Justice was compe­tent under the rules to fix the initial salary of the Registrar at a figure up to Rs. 1180/- per month. The pension of the petitioner was Rs. 238.10 per month/ His pension equivalent to gratuity was Rs. 71.85 per month. Hence the Accountant General issued a pay-slip for Rupees-870.05 which represented the maximuminitial salary fixable by the Chief Jus­tice minus the pension. 8. The learned Advocate-General has "taken two preliminary points. 1180/- per month. The pension of the petitioner was Rs. 238.10 per month/ His pension equivalent to gratuity was Rs. 71.85 per month. Hence the Accountant General issued a pay-slip for Rupees-870.05 which represented the maximuminitial salary fixable by the Chief Jus­tice minus the pension. 8. The learned Advocate-General has "taken two preliminary points. Firstly he ed some material facts by not disclosing contends that the petitioner has suppress-what correspondence passed between the High Court and the Government subse­quently. Secondly, the Chief Justice is a necessary party and the petition is defective on account of the omission to make him a party. So, it is submitted that the petition should be dismissed in limine. 9. There is no force in the above con­tentions. The petitioner was appointed by a notification dated 28-4-67. By another notification of the same date the terms of his appointment were laid down. All that we have to examine is whether or not the appointment is valid and the terms are in conformity with law. These notifications were never modified and we are not concerned with the correspon­dence that passed subsequently between the High Court and the Government. 10. The petitioner is not seeking any relief against the Chief Justice. His contention is that the appointment made by the Chief Justice and the terms given by him are valid. The Chief Justice, is, therefore, not a necessary party. 11. As stated above, the Government contends that the financial rules in the Assam High Court Appointment and Con­ditions of Service Rules of 1961 as well as in the Rules of 1967 are invalid and that the financial rules in the Rules of 1956 have been in force. For the pur­pose of this case, we need not examine whether the financial rules in the Rules of 1961 and 1967 are valid or not. We shall assume that the financial rules of 1956 only are in force and examine whe­ther the pay and allowance given to the petitioner are valid under these rules. 12. The order of appointment of the petitioner was stated to have been made in exercise of powers conferred by Arti­cle 229 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 7 (1) of the Rules of 1967. It is pointed out that the appointment was made in April 1967 whereas the Rules of 1967 were published only in October of that year. It is pointed out that the appointment was made in April 1967 whereas the Rules of 1967 were published only in October of that year. Hence it is contended that the notification is vitiated. There is no force this argument. The reference to Rule 7 (1) of the Rules of 1967 was redundant and such reference does not in any way affect the Notification regarding the peti­tioner's appointment and fixation of salary. The appointment was made under Article 229 (1) of the Constitution of India which says- "Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other offi­cer of the Court as he may direct." In fact, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Hukumchand Mills v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1329 , even a reference to a wrong source of power, does not vitiate the power exercised. But in the instant case, the reference to Arti­cle 229 is there in the notification ap­pointing the petitioner. 13. The learned Advocate-General has submitted that the above appointment being that of a retired person, should be deemed to be an appointment under Rule 142 of the Assam Pension Manual which allows re-employment on public grounds and that the notification appointing the Registrar should be modified according­ly. The argument is not understood. All that Rule 142 of the Assam Pension Manual says is that a retired person shall) not be re-employed except on public grounds. There is no necessity to refer to this rule in the notification or to give there the grounds for the appointment. Therefore, the question of modification of the notification does not arise. The Chief Justice is competent to make the appoint­ment under Article 229 of the Constitu­tion and hence the appointment made by him is valid. The learned Advocate Gene­ral, however, after a long argument as to the validity of the petitioner's ap­pointment, has conceded that in so far as the petitioner's appointment as Regis­trar is concerned, no question can be raised as the Chief Justice made the ap­pointment under Article 229. His conten­tion now is limited to the factum of fixation of pay and allowance, which we shall deal with hereafter. It is not under­stood why the Government insisted on a formal contract between the petitioner and the Chief Justice. His conten­tion now is limited to the factum of fixation of pay and allowance, which we shall deal with hereafter. It is not under­stood why the Government insisted on a formal contract between the petitioner and the Chief Justice. The terms of ap­pointment were notified and these were accepted by the petitioner by joining the post. No question of a formal contract could arise. The only question is whe­ther the Chief Justice was competent to give the terms which he gave viz. pay of Rs. 1500/- minus pension and a special pay of Rs. 250/- 14. Under the Rules of 1956 the pay-scale of the Registrar was laid down as Rs. 850-50/1-1,500/- per mensem. Then Rule 3 (i) read as follows: "The post of the Registrar, when filled up from the Service will carry a special pay of Rs. 150 per mensem in addition to the Grade pay as admissible to the members of the Assam Judicial Service (Senior) Grade I. In any other case the Chief Justice will have power to fix. without the previous approval of the Governor, the initial pay up to Rs. 1.200/- a month according to the experience, ability and age of the person concerned." 15. Subsequently the pay-scale was fixed at Rs. 850-50-1000-60-1300 EB-50-1500. Hence a consequential alteration was made in Rule 3 (i) by authorising the Chief Justice to fix the initial pay with­out the approval of the Governor, up to Us. 1180/- The above rule thus meant that where at the time of appointment as Registrar a person was already a Dis­trict Judge or Additional District Judge, he would get a special pay of Rs. ISO/-. In all other cases, the Chief Justice could fix the initial pay without approval of the Governor, up to Rs. 1180/-. 16. The Government revised the pay-scale of the Registrar to Rs. 1200-60-1330 EB-60-1500/-. This revision was given effect to from the 1st of April 1964. With effect from that date, a special pay was also sanctioned if the Registrar was "borne on the Judicial Service." This sanction was communicated to the High Court by Government letter No. LJJ. 96/62/132 dated the 4th September 1967. 17. When the initial pay of the Regis­trar became Rs. 1200/-, the authority to fix the initial pay at Rs. 1180/- became meaningless. Hence, by implication the figure Rs. 1180/- should be read as Rupees 1500/-. 96/62/132 dated the 4th September 1967. 17. When the initial pay of the Regis­trar became Rs. 1200/-, the authority to fix the initial pay at Rs. 1180/- became meaningless. Hence, by implication the figure Rs. 1180/- should be read as Rupees 1500/-. When the initial pay was Rupees 850/- in the pay-scale'of Rs. 850-50-1000-60-1300EB-50-1500/- the Chief Justice could fix the initial pay at Rs. 1180/- i.e. the Chief Justice could allow six incre­ments. So when the initial pay became Rs. 1200/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-60-1380EB-60-1500/-, the authority to fix the initial pay must be up to Rs. 1500/-. In fact six increments will bring the salary to Rs. 1560/-. But the maximum in the pay-scale is Rs. 1500/-. Rule 3 (i) must be adapted accordingly. In this con­nection the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradyut Kumar v. Chief Justice of Calcutta,' AIR 1956 SC 285 may be referr­ed to. Although under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India, the Chief Jus­tice has to make rules prescribing the conditions of service of the High Court employees, no such rules were made by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court so far as the Registrar of the Ori­ginal Side was concerned. The Civil Ser­vice Rules remained in force so far as the said Registrar was concerned, by vir­tue of Article 313 which says that until other provision is made in this behalf under this Constitution, all the laws in force immediately before the commence­ment of this Constitution and applicable to any public service or any post which continues to exist after the commence­ment of this Constitution, as an all India Service or as service or post under the Union or a State shall continue in force so far as consistent with the provisions of this Constitution. 18. The Supreme Court pointed put that the continued application of the Civil Service Rules without adaptation would result in anomaly. So, it held that in the continued application of the Civil Service Rules, the word "Governor" had to be read as substituted by the word "Chief Justice". 19. We, therefore, hold that in view of the revision of the pay-scale the figure "Rs. 1180" in Rule 3 (1) has to-be read as substituted by the figure-"Rs. 1500", as otherwise it would lead to anomaly. 19. We, therefore, hold that in view of the revision of the pay-scale the figure "Rs. 1180" in Rule 3 (1) has to-be read as substituted by the figure-"Rs. 1500", as otherwise it would lead to anomaly. If the above adaptation is not made, the authority given to the Chief Justice to fix the initial salary at Rupees 1180/- without approval of the Governor, becomes infructuous when the pay scale is Rs. 1200-1500. In that case we have-to fall on Rule 11 of the Rules of 1956; and that Rule reads as follows: "11. (i) In regard to pay, allowances, leave, leave salary or pension, the rules and regulations applicable to the mem­bers of the services under the rule-mak­ing power of the Government of Assam shall apply, mutatis mutandis to persons.-serving in this High Court and subject also to such amendments and variations; as may be made by the Chief Justice from time to time with approval of the Governor, where necessary: Provided that the powers exercisable-under the said rules and orders by the Governor or by any authority subordinate-to the Governor shall be exercisable by the Chief Justice or by such person as he may, by special or general order, direct. (ii) Any question arising as to which rules or orders are applicable to the case of any person serving on the staff attach­ed to the High Court shall be decided by the Chief Justice." 20. It cannot be disputed that the Governor is competent to fix the initial salary of a Government employee at any stage in a pay scale. Fundamental R. 13 says that the fixation of pay is within the competence of the Governor. Obvious­ly this power belongs to the Chief Jus­tice so far as the High Court employees; are concerned under the proviso to R. 11 (i). So the Chief Justice becomes com­petent to fix the pay of the Registrar at: Rs. 1500/- in the scale of Rs. 1200-1500/-. In this connection the decision of the-Punjab High Court in Sri Kidar Nath v. Punjab Government, AIR 1964 Punj 285-may be referred to. So the Chief Justice becomes com­petent to fix the pay of the Registrar at: Rs. 1500/- in the scale of Rs. 1200-1500/-. In this connection the decision of the-Punjab High Court in Sri Kidar Nath v. Punjab Government, AIR 1964 Punj 285-may be referred to. Rule 29 of the Punjab High Court Establishment Rules,, made the Punjab Civil Services Rules ap­plicable to persons serving on the staff attached to the High Court, but accord­ing to the proviso to the said rule the-powers exercisable under those rules by the Governor or Government were to be-exercised by the Chief Justice or such-other person as he may, by general or-special order, direct. The Punjab High Court held that the Finance Department being only a unit of the Punjab Govern­ment, the powers conferred on the said Department by the Punjab Civil Service Rules could be exercised by the Chief Justice in regard to persons in the staff of the High Court. 21. The learned Advocate-General has submitted that if the power of the Gover­nor to fix the initial salary has been delegated to the Chief Justice, it is a case of excessive delegation amounting to abdication. There is no force in this argument. The question of delegation cannot arise when the Chief Justice makes a rule under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India relating to pay, allowance etc. of High Court employees and such a rule has the approval of the Governor. The above Article does not say that it is the Governor who can lay down the conditions of service of a High Court employee relating to pay, allow­ance etc. Had it said, so, there could be the contention that this power could not be given up by the Governor. But all that the provision in Article 229 (2) lays down is that the Chief Justice can make rules laying down the conditions of ser­vice of High Court employees and if such a rule relates to pay, allowance etc. it must have the approval of the Governor. If a rule lays down that the Chief Jus­tice can decide the pay-scales of the High Court employees and this rule has the approval of the Governor, the rule will be valid and no question of delegation of power will arise. it must have the approval of the Governor. If a rule lays down that the Chief Jus­tice can decide the pay-scales of the High Court employees and this rule has the approval of the Governor, the rule will be valid and no question of delegation of power will arise. It is nowhere provid­ed that it is the Governor who can lay down the pay scales of employees whom the Chief Justice alone can appoint under Article 229 (1). If the Governor does not have this power, the question of delegation does not arise. The conditions of service of High Court employees have been made subject to legislative control by Article 229 (2). But if such condi­tions are not laid down by legislation, the Chief Justice can certainly make a rule laying down that he would have the power to grant higher initial salary and such a rule will be valid if it has the approval of the Governor. It will not be a case of delegation of some power by the Governor which he himself posses­ses. The Governor possesses the power of fixing higher initial salary of employees appointed by him only. It is the Chief Justice who can sanction the pay scale of a High Court employee by rule with the approval of the Governor. An approving authority is not the sanctioning authority. 22. The learned Advocate General then submits that Rule 60A in the Assam Pension Manual applies to the High Court employees and therefore, the Chief Jus­tice cannot allow a person on re-em­ployment a higher initial salary than the last pay drawn by him. Rule 60A reads-as follows: "The Administrative Departments are competent to fix pay and allowances of all reemployed officers when the pay ore re-employment together with pension, where allowed to be drawn separately, including the commuted portion of pen­sion and pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity, if any, does not exceed the last pay drawn by the officer-immediately before retirement." 23. As already pointed put the Chief Justice exercises the same power of fix­ing the initial salary of a High Court em­ployee as the Governor exercises in respect of employees appointed by the Gov­ernment. The power of the Chief Justice-is not restricted to the power of an "Administrative Department." The Gov­ernor has the power of fixing a higher initial salary in the pay-scale of a Gov­ernment employee. The power of the Chief Justice-is not restricted to the power of an "Administrative Department." The Gov­ernor has the power of fixing a higher initial salary in the pay-scale of a Gov­ernment employee. By the above R. 60A in the Assam Pension Manual this power has been delegated to an Administrative Department with the limitation that the Department cannot fix a salary which exceeds the last pay drawn by the officer. An Administrative Department is not the Government, it is only a unit of the Government. Hence this rule does not restrict the power of the Chief Jus­tice in the fixation of initial salary in the pay-scale of a High Court employee in­asmuch as it does not restrict the power of the Governor in that respect so far as a Government employee is concerned. 24. The Chief Justice is expected to follow the same principles as the Gover­nor in fixing a higher initial salary. A higher initial salary is given to get a good and efficient man. If a Chief Jus­tice exercises this power arbitrarily or capriciously, his action may be struck down by the Court. In the instant case, the Government thought that the peti­tioner deserved the pay of Rs. 1500/. The Government also took the stand that, in certain cases, it did allow to a re-em­ployed person a salary higher than the last pay drawn by him. This is obvious from the following passage from D. O. letter No. LJJ. 59/67/10 dated the 29th September 1967, written by the Secre­tary of the Law Department to the Ac­countant General, Assam viz.- "In appropriate cases Government have-appointed a retired Government servant on a salary higher than his last pay drawn. I need not cite instances on this point. I may only indicate that appoint­ment of Shri B. C. Dutta on a monthly salary of Rs. 1500/- on contract basis will be only reasonable having regard to the experience of the officer concerned. Under the High Court Rules, the Hon'ble, Chief Justice can exercise the same power as the Governor in relation to the officers of the High Court". 25. As regards the allowance of Rs. 250/- the Government has sanction­ed it to a Registrar who is "borne on the Judicial Service". Rule 7 (1) of the Rules of 1956 says as follows: "The Registrar shall be a member of the State Judicial Service (Senior)". 25. As regards the allowance of Rs. 250/- the Government has sanction­ed it to a Registrar who is "borne on the Judicial Service". Rule 7 (1) of the Rules of 1956 says as follows: "The Registrar shall be a member of the State Judicial Service (Senior)". This rule is repeated in the Rules of 1961. That is why the petitioner's pay had to be fixed within the pay-scale prescribed for a member of the Judicial Service, Senior Grade I. In the Assam Judicial Service Rules of 1952 as well as of 1967 also, the post of the Registrar is shown as being borne on the Judicial Service Senior Grade I." 26. The learned Advocate-General con­tends that the above rule will not apply if a retired person is appointed as a Registrar. There is nothing in the word­ing of the rule to support such an inter­pretation. The rule clearly means that whoever is the Registrar, will be a mem­ber of the State Judicial Service (Senior). The petitioner, on his appointment, became such a member and he was thus borne on the State Judicial Service. He is, therefore, entitled to the special pay of Rs. 250/-. 27. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner was holding the post of Presiding Officer, Industrial Tri­bunal, Assam when he was appointed as -the Registrar of the High Court with effect from 1-5-67. On the 17th August .1967 the Government made the Assam Judicial Service Rules 1967 and the posts of the Presiding Officers of the Indus­trial Tribunals and Labour Courts were included in the Assam Judicial Service 'Grade I. The age limit for a Presiding -Officer laid down in Section 7C of the Industrial Disputes Act is 65 years. The petitioner was only 63 years 10 months old when he joined as the Registrar. He could continue as the Presiding Officer till he was 65 years. Moreover, if he con­tinued as the Presiding Officer, he would have become a member of the Assam Judicial Service Grade I with effect from the 17th August, 1967 when the posts of the Presiding Officers were included in the said Service. When the Government 'has included posts for which the age-limit is 65 years in the Judicial Service, the contention that a retired man cannot "be a member of the Judicial Service has lost all force. When the Government 'has included posts for which the age-limit is 65 years in the Judicial Service, the contention that a retired man cannot "be a member of the Judicial Service has lost all force. It is interesting to note that under section 7A of the Industrial Dis­putes Act a retired High Court Judge can be appointed to the post of a Presid­ing Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Which is borne on the Assam Judicial Service. This also shows that there is no bar to appoint a retired man to the Assam Judicial Service. 28. The petitioner was appointed as Registrar for two years with effect from the 1st of May 1967. For this period he will get his salary at the rate of Rupees 1500/- per month minus his pension and plus a special pay of Rs. 250/- per month. The Accountant General (Respondent No. 1) is directed to issue pay-slip ac­cordingly within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judg­ment by him. This Court passed an interim order directing the Accountant-General to issue pay slip to the petitioner for a pay of Rs. 1200/- per month minus pension and plus special pay of Rs. 250/-per month. The money already drawn by the petitioner shall be adjusted. The petition is allowed with costs. Hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 150/-. The rule is made absolute. 29. K. C. SEN, J.: I agree. Petition allowed.