In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to regularise his service in the post of Programme Officer from 3.10.92 in the scale of pay for the said post, and also arrear salary. Petitioner further prayed for Training Allowance during his training at North East Forest Ranges's College, Jalukbari, Assam. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Programme Assistant in the department of Tribal Rehabilitation in Plant and Primitive Group Programme, (for short TRP & PGP) vide Annexure A appointment order dated 4.11.87 and he joined the post on 6.11.87 and his service was confirmed in the post of Programme Assistant. Petitioner was selected for one year Forester's Course Training at Regional Forest Training Institute at Sepahijala for the session 1987-88 and he successfully completed the course. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Officer In-charge of Karbok TR Centre under Jatanbari TR Division, South Tripura. According to the petitioner the Department of TRP & PGP is the sister department of the Forest Department of Govt of Tripura. Thereafter, petitioner was selected for undergoing training in the Forest Rangers's training course for the session 1990-92 at North Eastern Regional Forest Rangers College, Jalukbari, Assam vide Annexure G order dated 27.7.90 issued by the Director, Tribal Rehabilitation in Plantation & PGR After completion of his training the petitioner was posted at Teliamura as In-charge Programme Officer, Atharamura TR Range vide order dated 22.10.92 and the petitioner joined the post on 10.11.92 and since then he has been discharging his duties as such. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations and even served Advocate's notice on respondents for appointing him as Programme Officer. In response to the Advocate's notice the petitioner was informed that his case has been examined thoroughly and the Department has not taken any decision regarding recruitment rules. It has been stated that the Directorate of TRP & PGP is following the Rules and Regulation of Forest Department for all practical purposes, therefore, petitioner has prayed for regularising him in the post of Programme Officer from 3.10.92. ie the date on which he reported for duties as In-charge Programme Officer. Hence this petition. 3. It has been stated that the Directorate of TRP & PGP is following the Rules and Regulation of Forest Department for all practical purposes, therefore, petitioner has prayed for regularising him in the post of Programme Officer from 3.10.92. ie the date on which he reported for duties as In-charge Programme Officer. Hence this petition. 3. Respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the Directorate of TRP & PGP is not a sister Department of Forest Department and only some Forest Officers are working in the said department on deputation basis. It is averred that the petitioner was not entitled to get training allowance during the training period for Forest Rangers course at Jalukbari, Assam. Respondents further stated that the post of Forest Ranger in the Forest Department is not equivalent to the post of Programme Officer of the Department of TRP & PGP, only the scale of pay of these posts are similar. According to these respondents the petitioner was asked to perform the duties of Programme Officer as In-charge without appointing him to the post of Programme Officer and this arrangement was made as stop gap measure. It has been further stated that as there was no recruitment rules the respondents could not post any duly appointed Programme Officer as the petitioner was not appointed in the post of Programme Officer he is not entitled to get the pay scale of that post. 4. I have heard Mr. MN Indu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Govt Advocate for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner has successfully completed the Forest Rangers course and he was posted as In-charge, Programme Officer, he is entitled to get regularisation in the said post. It has been further submitted that while the petitioner was sent for Forest Ranger's course training out of the State no Training Allowance was paid to him. The learned Govt Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that on completion of training the petitioner was not entitled to be declared as Programme Officer for all intents and purposes with the scale of pay of the said post. The learned Govt Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that on completion of training the petitioner was not entitled to be declared as Programme Officer for all intents and purposes with the scale of pay of the said post. He further submitted that the Department of Forest and the Department of TRP & PGP are separate Departments, therefore, the procedure followed in Forest Department is not applicable to the Department of TRP & PGP Department. Further, the petitioner was only asked to perform the duties of Programme Officer without appointing him to the post of Programme Officer and this was a stop gap arrangement to meet the exigencies of service. It has further been stated that as there was no recruitment rules the respondents could not post any duly appointed person to the post of Programme Officer. 6. From the above it is seen that the petitioner on his completion of Forest Rangers training was posted as In-charge Programme Officer. Annexure J officer order dated 22.10.92 runs thus : “2. Sri Tapan Kumar Roy Choudhury, Programme Assistant who reported for duties on 3.10.92 afternoon in this office after completion of 2 (two) years Rangers Training Course in hereby posted at Teliamura as In-charge Programme Officer, Atharamura TR Range vice Sri Tirthajoy Tripura, PA In-charge Atharamura TR Range transferred.” It is stated in the petition that petitioner successfully completed the Forest Rangers's training course and the post of Programme officer is equivalent to Forest Ranger, but the respondents denying the statement stated that the post are not equivalent but 'the scale of pay of two posts are similar'. It has been specifically stated in paragraph 15 of the affidavit that "since the recruitment rules for the post of Programme Officer has not yet been framed, the respondents are not giving any regular appointment to the post of Programme Officer." From the above, it is clear that the appointment was not given to the petitioner only because of the reason that no recruitment rules has yet been framed. But no reasons has been given why the Department could not frame the recruitment rules for the last many years and continuing the practice of posting the persons as In-charge, Programme Officer. But no reasons has been given why the Department could not frame the recruitment rules for the last many years and continuing the practice of posting the persons as In-charge, Programme Officer. The petitioner was posted as In-charge, Programme Officer, Atharamura TR Range since 10.11.92 and is still holding the post even after six years, though this arrangement was stated to be a 'stop gap measure due to meet the exigencies of service.' Learned Govt Advocate in support of his contention relied a judgment of the Apex Court in Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1991 SC 1145 , and has submitted that in-charge arrangement is not a recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority. After going through the said judgment, in my opinion, the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable in this case. 7. In the instant case, from the facts and circumstances discussed above, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for regularisation in the post of Programme Officer, though the petitioner was appointed as Programme Assistant he was posted as In-charge of Programme Officer since 10.11.92 that too without any allowance. Though the term 'officiating' or 'promotion' is not used in the order, from the nature of engagement/appointment it appears that he was holding the post on 'officiating' basis since a long time. It is submitted by the Govt Advocate that the department has not framed any recruitment rules. But, in my opinion, this Court being a writ Court can decide the claim/right of the petitioner and being a Court of equity can give relief to the petitioner accordingly. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Programme Officer. It is also an admitted fact now the petitioner has gathered experience since his posting as Programme Officer and in that view of the matter, in my view, the petitioner's service should be regularised in the post of Programme Officer. The authorities cannot take work in the higher post from his continuing him in the pay scale attached to the lower post of Programme Assistant, that too without giving any allowance to him. 8. The authorities cannot take work in the higher post from his continuing him in the pay scale attached to the lower post of Programme Assistant, that too without giving any allowance to him. 8. Regarding the claim of the petitioner for allowance during his training, in the Annexure I of the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that "each trainee must be in receipt of a sum of Rs.750/- per month as stipend...(b) in service trainee will draw the pay and allowance etc admissible to their grades or a stipend of Rs.750 whichever is more and should be paid by the sponsoring authority through the Principal of the college." It has been specifically stated in the affidavit that during the training period the petitioner was paid full pay and allowance and this statement has not been controverted by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the prayer for the allowance is not tenable and I hold that the petitioner is not entitled for the allowance as claimed for. 9. In view of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in the post of Programme Officer, as he has the requisite qualification to hold the post. As the petitioner was holding a higher post since 10.11.92 without any extra remuneration/allowance, I direct the authorities to give him some monetary benefit for the period he has been holding the higher post ie Programme Officer, till his regularisation in the said post, as per the law in existence. 10. The respondents shall take necessary steps as directed above, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certificate copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall obtain certified copy of this judgment. The and submit before the respondents for doing the needful. With the above direction this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.