Heard Mr. AM Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. UB Saha, learned Govt Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner Sri Haranidhi Dutta, an employee of the Tripura Khadi and , Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to the Board). While the petitioner was serving as District Development Officer (DDO), vide Annexure 1 dated 12.1.89 he was appointed as Additional Executive Officer (AEO) in the scale of Rs. 650-1,595. The petitioner was allowed to continue in the said post. 3. Consequently, the revision of pay scales as recommended by the Tripura Third Pay Commission, the Board proposed a revised scale of Rs. 2,100-4,530 c against the recommended scale of Rs.2,000-4,410. The proposal of the Board was sent to the State Govt for approval as required. It may be mentioned here that the Board is an autonomous body and the Industries Department is the Administrative Department of the Board. The case of the petitioner is that pending approval for the revised pay scale by the State Govt, the Board allowed the petitioner to draw the revised pay scale. Thereafter, vide Annexure 6 dated 6.10.93, the petitioner was informed that the Govt has not approved the pay scale of Rs. 2,100-4,530 for the post of AEO and accordingly the pay scale of the petitioner was refixed in the scale of Rs.2,000-4,410. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing of the said Annexure 6 and also prayed for a direction for fixing his pay in the pay scale of Rs. 2,100-4,530. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the report of the Tripura Fourth Pay Commission was published. The Fourth Pay Commission proposed a pay scale of Rs. 7,450-13,000 to the officers of AEO cadre. The recommendation was not accepted and the State Govt fixed their pay in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-12,300. The petitioner, therefore filed a petition for amendment with a prayer that he may be given the pay scale recommended by the Tripura Fourth Pay f Commission i.e. Rs. 7,450-13,000. 5. The case of the respondent-Govt is that the pay scale of Rs. 2,100-4,530 was proposed by the Board only, but it was subject to the approval by the State Govt as required under Regulation 3 (2) of the Board's Regulation, 1970. 7,450-13,000. 5. The case of the respondent-Govt is that the pay scale of Rs. 2,100-4,530 was proposed by the Board only, but it was subject to the approval by the State Govt as required under Regulation 3 (2) of the Board's Regulation, 1970. No such approval was accorded by the Govt, but due to mistake of certain officers of the Board, the petitioner was allowed to draw the higher pay scale at Rs. 2,100-4,530 which has been subsequently rectified vide Annexure 6. 6. So far the facts as stated above are concerned, there is no dispute at the Bar. Regulation 3 (2) of the Board's Regulations 1970 reads as follows: “3. (2) In fixing the scales of pay and allowances of its owe employees the Board may take into account the scales of pay and allowances of similar categories of Govt servants: Provided that in the cases where the maximum salary or the honorarium exceeds Rs. 300 per month or wages exceed Rs. 10 per day, previous approval of the Administrator shall be taken." . It is submitted that the word 'Administrator' was substituted by the State Govt in the year 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly submitted that the approval was required to be taken from the State Govt and it is also admitted by the petitioner that no such approval regarding the proposed pay scale for the post of AEO was given by the State Govt as required. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. AM Lodh submitted that there was a implied, approval of the above pay scale as because the budget proposal was submitted by the Board showing the pay scale for the petitioner at the above rate and as the budget proposal was accepted by the State Govt, the petitioner's higher pay scale was allowed which was given to him, and it means that the pay scale has been impliedly approved by the State Govt. I am unable to accept the above submission for the simple reason that the approval of budget proposals does not mean the approval of whatever stated submitted in the proposal. If some pay scale requires approval by the State Govt, this is required to be done in the manner provided under the rules and regulations. I am unable to accept the above submission for the simple reason that the approval of budget proposals does not mean the approval of whatever stated submitted in the proposal. If some pay scale requires approval by the State Govt, this is required to be done in the manner provided under the rules and regulations. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in the year 1989, the Board made a budget proposal of Rs. 87 lakhs out of which the Govt sanctioned a sum of Rs.41 lakhs only. The sanctioning a sum of Rs.41 lakhs does not mean or imply that the pay scale of the petitioner has been approved. Further, the next budget proposal, it is seen that the Board had spent 15 lakhs excess for the budget sanction. Thus, this excess expenditure or budget proposal or approval thereof does not mean that the pay scale of the petitioner has been approved. 8. The next submission on behalf of the petitioner is that recruitment rules for the post of AEO was framed showing the pay scale of Rs. 2,100-4,530. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that these were draft recruitment rules only and these were never approved or adopted by the State Govt. The pay scales shown in the draft rules were on the basis of the proposal of the Board, but the Govt did not accept the proposal. 9. Shri Lodh has further submitted that the post of AEO is a promotion post of the DDOs and as such an identical pay scale cannot be provided for the both the posts. As per Annexure 7, it is seen that the existing pay scale for DDO and AEO is Rs.2,000-4,410. It has been/fairly Submitted that earlier also ie pre-revised stage the pay scales of both the posts were identical, ie Rs. 650-1,595. In their affidavit-in-reply, the State has cited reasons as to why higher pay scale cannot be given to the petitioner or to the persons in the cadre of AEO. It is stated mat other officers of the equivalent rank and similar responsibility reviving in the Industries Department are gives the identical pay scale i.e. Rs.2,000-4,410 and also considering the financial constraints of the Board no higher pay scale was allowed or approved. It is stated mat other officers of the equivalent rank and similar responsibility reviving in the Industries Department are gives the identical pay scale i.e. Rs.2,000-4,410 and also considering the financial constraints of the Board no higher pay scale was allowed or approved. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Action Council of Service Doctors' Organisation vs Union of India & another reported in (1996) 7 SCC 256 , it is stated that the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission cannot be rejected by the Govt without cogent reasons. In the aforesaid case, it was held by the Apex Court that no vested right is created by the force of the recommendation of the committee including the Commission. It is further observed that the recommendations of the high powered committee like Pay Commission are not to be rejected without cogent reasons. The learned counsel for the Board submits that acceptance of the report of the Pay Commission or providing a pay scale to its employees is within the domain of the employer. It is stated that so far Fourth Pay Commission is concerned, the Commission was influenced by the proposal of the Board and thereby recommended higher pay scale. The Govt after considering all aspects ^ of the matter and after evaluating the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the other equivalent posts, did not approve the recommendation. In the case of Union of India vs. Makhan Chandra Roy reported in AIR 1997 SC 2391 , the Apex Court has held that “the Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.” 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find that in absence of approval of the pay scale of Rs. 2,100-4,530 by the State Govt as required under the Regulations and also under clause 7 of the ROP Rules 1988/Memorandum of the Finance Department dated 6.9.88, no vested right in favour of the petitioner has been created to receive the pay scale of Rs. 2,100-4,530 and now Rs. 7,450-13,000. There was no implied approval. Hence, it is held that no case for quashing of Annexure 6 has been made out. 11. It is stated that as per the interim order of this Court in this writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to draw his pay in the higher scale. 2,100-4,530 and now Rs. 7,450-13,000. There was no implied approval. Hence, it is held that no case for quashing of Annexure 6 has been made out. 11. It is stated that as per the interim order of this Court in this writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to draw his pay in the higher scale. It is further stated that in the meantime, the petitioner has retired from service. The learned counsel for the Board has submitted that the Board is entitled to recover the excess amount from the pension payable to the petitioner. In the case of V. Gangaram vs. Regional Joint Director & others reported in (1997) 6 SCC 139 , it was held that if the petitioner is found to have drawn excess amount, then the same can be recovered from the pension payable to him. In view of the earlier finding that the petitioner was not entitled to the higher pay scale, the respondent Board is at liberty to take necessary action under the law as per decision of the Apex Court in V. Gangaram's case (supra). 12. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Costs made easy.