ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J. 1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the former State of Madhya Bharat and was appointed on the establishment of the Board of Revenue to work as an accountant. His substantive rank was that of an Upper Division Clerk. It is not disputed that there was no post of Accountant of the Board of Revenue In the former State of Madhya Bharat. After formation of the State of Madhya Pradesh w. e. f. 1-11-56 the petitioner continued to work as Accountant in the Board of Revenue. By an order dated 4th January 1960. The State Government sanctioned the set up of the Board of Revenue which included one post of Accountant, I Grade Clerk (vide annexure 2) w. e. f. 1-11-56. By an order dated 18th May 1960 the petitioner was absorbed as an accountant, I Grade Clerk w. e. f. 1-11-1956 apparently on the post sanctioned by order dated 4-1-60. Subsequently, the matter came up for consideration before the Government and the Government thought the absorption of the petitioner against the port of Accountant was against the instructions of the General Administration Department, according to which the absorption of an allocated Government servant in the new set up could be made only in the corresponding category. As in the new set up posts of Upper Division Clerks had been sanctioned which corresponded to the post of Upper Division Clerk of the former State of Madhya Bharat which was held by the petitioner, the Government, therefore, directed that the petitioner can be absorbed as an Upper Division Clerk in the new set up w. e. f. 1-11-56 and not as an accountant vide order dated 28th April 1967 (vide Annexure 1). In pursuance of these directions of the Government, the President, Board of Revenue revised the order of absorption of the petitioner by order dated 9-1-70 (Annexure 15) and he was absorbed as an Upper Division Clerk Grade II w. e. f. 1-11-56. On the same date the President passed an order promoting the petitioner as an Accountant w. e. f. 15-1-60 (vide Annexure 15-A). 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be absorbed as an Accountant w. e. f. 1-11-56 and be paid his pay and allowances accordingly. On the same date the President passed an order promoting the petitioner as an Accountant w. e. f. 15-1-60 (vide Annexure 15-A). 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be absorbed as an Accountant w. e. f. 1-11-56 and be paid his pay and allowances accordingly. He has, therefore, filed this petition challenging the aforesaid orders revising his original order of absorption w. e. f. 1-11-56 as Accountant. 4. It being not disputed that the petitioner was not holding the post of Accountant immediately before 1-11-56 as no such post was sanctioned and that he was holding only the post of U.D.C, Grade II, the petitioner could be absorbed only in a corresponding post. Apart from the instructions from the Government in this behalf this is also in accordance with the provision of section 115 of the States Re-organisation Act. In fact it is not the grievance of the petitioner that the provisions of the said section have been violated in this case. 5. It appears that the petitioner was originally absorbed as an Accountant w. e. f. 1-11-56 under a misapprehension and this mistake was subsequently rectified. This appears to be perfectly in order and the petitioner can have no grievance on that court. We, therefore, see no good reason to interfere with the order relating to the absorption of the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk w. e. f. 1-11-56 after setting aside the previous order of absorption as an Accountant from the said date. 6. It is however, clear that the petitioner was actually working as an Accountant w. e. f. 1-11-56. It is also clear that by an order dated 4-1-60 the Government sanctioned the post of Accountant, I Grade Clerk from 1-11-56. As the petitioner was actually working on this post he is entitled to pay and allowances of that post during the period he worked on that post, particularly as the post was in existence and no other person was appointed on that post. A similar view was expressed by this Court in Shyam Sunderlal v. State of M. P. & another 1970 JLJ 88 at p. 416. The Government is, therefore, in error in denying the petitioner pay and allowances of the post of Accountant, I Grade w. e. f. 1-11-56 even though he was working on that post. A similar view was expressed by this Court in Shyam Sunderlal v. State of M. P. & another 1970 JLJ 88 at p. 416. The Government is, therefore, in error in denying the petitioner pay and allowances of the post of Accountant, I Grade w. e. f. 1-11-56 even though he was working on that post. In fact the petitioner must be deemed to be officiating on that post w. e. f. this date even though he was absorbed as an Upper Division Clerk, Grade II from that date. The petition may, therefore, be allowed to this extent. 7. The petition is, therefore, partly allowed and the State Government is directed to treat the petitioner as officiating in the post of Accountant, 1 Grade clerk on the establishment of the Board of Revenue w. e. f. 1-11-56 and to pay his pay and allowances accordingly. In the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. The security amount may be re funded to the petitioner. Petition allowed