S. K. Homchandhuri, J.— This writ petition is directed against denial of the right of encadrement of the post held by the petitioner in the Junior Industries Service Grade-II along with Inspecting Accountants, who are similarly situated in the Directorate of Industries, Assam and were encadred in that service with effect from 15.11.1975, and denial of consequential benefits thereof. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Lower Division Assistant in the Directorate of Industries with effect from 11. 11. 1954. He came to be promoted as Upper Division Assistant on 17. 4. 1967. While working as such, the petitioner underwent training in Accounts in the office of the Accountant Genera], Shillong. On 28. 4. 1967, the petitioner alongwith four others were interviewed for the post of Inspecting Accountant. The petitioner secured second position and was selected. The post of Inspecting Accountant was an ex-cadre post. In the meantime, an equivalent post of Divisional Accountant with identical pay scale of Inspecting Accountant was created. The petitioner was appointed and posted as Divisional Accountant in the Central Workshop, Industrial Estate while the other incumbents who were similarly interviewed were posted as Inspecting Accountant under the Directorate; of Industries. The posts of Inspecting Accountant and the Divisional Accountant were ex-cadred posts. The Third Pay Commission of 1973 in its report recommended for encadrement of the posts of Inspecting Accountant and Divisional Accountant as follows: "Account Service - Except the senior Cost Accountant for whom the Commission recommended the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 1150/- to Rs. 1675/- and who has got special training qualification of Cost Accountancy, the other posts may be encadrement (sic) in the corresponding grade of Assam Financial Service/Subordinate Accountants Service." The aforesaid recommendation was accepted by the Government and while accepting the recommendations, it stated as follows s ''The Commission has made a number of recommendations relating to certain important re organisation in the case of some service/cadres and these recommendations have been approved by Government. The concerning Government Departments should immediately implement these recommendations in consultation with Appointment and Finance (Pay Commission) Department". 3. In giving effect to the aforesaid recommendations, the Directorate of Industries, Government of Assam, by Notification dated 15.11.1975 encadred the post of Inspecting Accountant in the Junior Industries Service (Non-Technical) Grade-II, with effect from the date of notification, but left out the equivalent post of Divisional Accountant. 3. In giving effect to the aforesaid recommendations, the Directorate of Industries, Government of Assam, by Notification dated 15.11.1975 encadred the post of Inspecting Accountant in the Junior Industries Service (Non-Technical) Grade-II, with effect from the date of notification, but left out the equivalent post of Divisional Accountant. This led the petitioner to file several representations, but it bore no fruit. In the meantime Fourth Pay Commission of 1979 came out and it made similar recommendation for encadrement of the post of the Divisional Accountant to the suitable grade of the Department. The petitioner again filed representation but it evoked no response. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached the Assam Admini­strative Tribunal who by order dated 29.11.86 passed in Case No. 114/86 disposed of the appeal with the direction to the Industries Department to dispose of the pending payers of the petitioner with a speaking order. As a consequence of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Joint Director (General), Directorate of Industries, Assam, recommended the encadrement of the post of Divisional Accountant in the cadre of Junior Industries Service (Non-Technical) Grade II, but the Government did not pass any order on the basis of the same. The petitioner again approached the Assam Administrative Tribunal and this time his appeal was registered as Appeal Case No. 11 AT A/ 88. The learned Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 19. 3. 88 partially allowed the appeal and directed that the petitioner's post be encadred with effect from the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, 1979. Not getting full relief the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition. 4. Mr. S. K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the post of Divisional Accountant and the Inspecting Accountant in the Directorate at the material time of appointment in the year 1967 were equivalent ex cadre posts, in giving effect to the recommendations of the Pay Commission of 1973, denial of encadrement of the post of Divisional Accountant to the Junior Industries Service (Non-Technical) Grade-II while encadring the post of Inspecting Accountant to that grade is discriminatory and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There cannot be any rational and intelligible differentia for encadring the equivalent post of Inspecting Accountant to be aforesaid service but denying encadrement lo the post of Divisional Accoun­tant. There cannot be any rational and intelligible differentia for encadring the equivalent post of Inspecting Accountant to be aforesaid service but denying encadrement lo the post of Divisional Accoun­tant. The petitioner was posted in the equivalent post of Divisional Accountant not of his own volition, but in the exigencies of public service and as such he cannot be denied the benefit which was extended to the Inspecting Accountants who were appointed on the basis of the similar interview and test. - 5. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have not denied the averments of the petitioner that at the material time the recruitment to the posts of Inspecting Accountant and Divisional Accountant in the Directo­rate were identical ex-cadre posts and that the petitioner was posted as Divisional Accountant in the interest of public service and not of his own volition although he secured second position in the interview. The respon­dents, however, wants to make a distinction by contending that the post of Inspecting Accountant in the Directorate is a State level post whereas the post of Divisional Accountant is meant for Central Workshop, Industrial Estate, Gauhati though tarrying identical pay scale. The endeavour of the respondents to make a distinction between the Inspecting Accountant and the Divisional Accountant to justify their stand for not encadring the post of Divisional Accountant, in our opinion, is not tenable. The posts of Inspecting Accountant and Divisional Accountant were originally ex-cadre posts having identical pay scale under the Directorate of Industries and in the exigencies of public service the petitioner was posted as Divisional Accountant while the other two incumbents who were similarly interviewed were posted as Inspecting Accountants. This being the position, it cannot be held that the post of Divisional Accountant should not be encadred in the aforesaid service while allowing Inspecting Account­ants to do so. This is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the petitioner was lawfully entitled to the benefit of the recommendations of the Pay Commission of i 973 and get himself encadred in the aforesaid service of the Department alongwith other Inspecting Accountant. The learned Tribunal has committed manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record in not considering that ancadrement of the post Inspecting Accountant and disallowing the same benefit to the Divisional Accountant was discriminatory. 6. The learned Tribunal has committed manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record in not considering that ancadrement of the post Inspecting Accountant and disallowing the same benefit to the Divisional Accountant was discriminatory. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and allow the petition and we direct the respondents to encadre the post of Divisional Accountant in the Junior Industrial Service (Non-Technical) Grade-II with effect from 15.11.1975, i.e. the date on which the notification for encadrement of the post of Inspecting Accountant was issued and to allow the petitioner all consequential benefits, i.e. seniority, promotion etc. At this stage, learned Government Advocate submits that during the long period, a number of promotions have taken place and in giving effect to the aforesaid order of this Court some incumbents will have to be reverted in the department. Our direction in giving effect to the consequential benefits as regards promotional benefits will be confined to notional promotion and without arrear pay to the post to which the petitioner was entitled had his post been encadred with effect from 15.11.1975. To avoid this eventuality, the Government is empowered to create superaumery post and allow him the benefit. It is stated from the Bar that the petitioneris on the verge of retirement. The respondents are directed to comply - with the aforesaid - directions within a period of two months from today.