K. S. BHAKTHAVATSALAM, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of parties this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has been working in the office of the 3rd respondent as general manager (operations ). One of the terms and conditions of his appointment is a special pay of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The complaint of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the special pay of Rs. 1,500/- though he has made requests as per annexures-d and e. Another grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled for Rs. 3,000/- per month for leased accommodation irrespective of whether he is staying in his own house or rented accommodation. The petitioner alleges that non-payment of Rs. 1,500/- p. m. from the date of his appointment is highly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the board is the competent authority which makes the appointment as statutory body under the State Financial Corporations Act. As such the petitioner has come up to this court with the following two prayers: ( 3 ) A statement of objections has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 in which it is stated that under Section 48 read with Section 23 of the state finanacial corporations ACT the state has not approved special pay of Rs. 1,500/- p. m. while approving the scale of pay and allowances for the post of executive director. It is also stated in the statement of objections that the creation of a new post and the terms and conditions applicable to the said post cannot become effective without making necessary amendment to the staff regulations which requires previous sanction of the state government as per Section 48 of the act. ( 4 ) THE state has filed a statement of objections in which it is stated that there was no post as executive director, and the post created requires an amendment to the k. s. f. c. staff regulations. It is stated that the respondent 1 examined the proposal of the corporation in detail and the board approved the creation of post of executive director in the pay scale of Rs. 5,900-6,650/ -. The highest scale of pay applicable to the state government employees is Rs. It is stated that the respondent 1 examined the proposal of the corporation in detail and the board approved the creation of post of executive director in the pay scale of Rs. 5,900-6,650/ -. The highest scale of pay applicable to the state government employees is Rs. 5,600-6,300/- and whereas the corporation which is an organ of the state which is being run by the government has granted a higher pay scale. Therefore the first respondent is justified in not granting or approving the special pay of Rs. 1,500/- p. m. it is also stated that if the demand of the petitioner is granted then there are as many as 422 officers in the cadre of manager, deputy general manager, general manager and another executive director who may also demand for grant of special pay which may result in heavy burden on the corporation. A reference is made to Section 48 of the State Financial Corporations Act and it is stated that there is no justification for the demand made by the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who argues that the corporation is an autonomous body and the fixation of pay is a contract between the employer-corporation and employee of the petitioner and the state government cannot have any say with regard to payment of special pay. Learned counsel draws assistance form a division bench judgment of the rajasthan High Court in R. F. C. officers association v R. F. C. and another and association of Selected Candidates v State of Bihar and others, of patna High Court in support of his submittion that the scheme of the provisions of the ACT makes it clear that the right to make appointments, determine the vacancies against which appointments are to be made and framing regulations for such appointment have been given to the financial corporation. The only power in this behalf given to the state government to specify the class or categories of posts in respect of which appointments may be made by the board without following the regulations and without adhering to the conditions of appointment 'and service and the remuneration payable to the employees or the officers appointed in such specified class or categories of posts. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the state has no say in the matter with regard to grant of special pay of Rs. 1,500/- p. m. to the petitioner. With regard to rental allowances claimed in the writ petition, learned counsel for the corporation has stated that it will be considered. As such the only question is with regard to special pay of Rs. 1,500/- p. m. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the state also vehemently contends that the state government has not approved the regulations and has not given any approval for special pay, it is not open to the petitioner to claim special pay of Rs. 1,500/- p. m. as of right. ( 7 ) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the corporation and also the High Court government pleader. Section 23 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 reads thus:section 48 of the ACT speaks about the power of board to make regulations. So far as this case is concerned it is necessary to extract sections 48 (1) and 48 (2) (j) which reads thus:a reading of these provisions in my view, do not anywhere curb the authority of the corporation to fix pay and enter into contract with the employee with regard to payment of salary. I do not think the state government's approval is necessary with regard to payment of salary to the employee of the corporation. A division bench judgment of the patna High Court in association of selected candidate's case, supra, it has been held (head notes 1 and 2):a division bench of the rajasthan High Court in r. f. c. officers association's case, supra, held as follows: ( 8 ) WITH respect I agree with the view taken by the learned judges of the patna and rajasthan high courts with regard to the power of the state government vis-a-vis, the state financial corporation. In my view sections 23 and 48 as extracted above, do not empower the state government to interfere with the payment of special pay to the petitioner. The corporation is an autonomous body though it is under the control of the state government for certain purposes. In my view sections 23 and 48 as extracted above, do not empower the state government to interfere with the payment of special pay to the petitioner. The corporation is an autonomous body though it is under the control of the state government for certain purposes. When the corporation is a statutory body and instrumentality of the state under article 12 of the constitution of India I do not think that the state government can interfere with the discretion of the corporation with regard to payment of salary to any of its employees. In my view the statute nowhere requires the payment to the officer has to be approved by the state government. In such circumstances, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. A writ is issued to the respondents to pay Rs. 1,500/- as special pay as asked for by the petitioner. With regard to the prayer regarding house rent allowances, no Order is necessary as the counsel for the corporation has stated that it will be considered. Petition ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .