JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. Re-designation of the Petitioner's status as Lower Divisional Assistant-cum-Typist from Lower Divisional Assistant (for short, 'LDA') and denial of the service benefits of LDA all through out is the subject matter of challenge and grievance raised in this writ petition. 2. I have heard Mr. S.R Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/Meghalaya State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board'). 3. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Bill Clerk vide office order dated 27.2.82 by the then Chief Engineer of the Board at the pay scale of Rs. 370-585/- per month plus other allowances admissible under the Board's Rules. On 17.12.94, a Circular was issued on behalf of the Respondents/Board inviting famishing of option from the employees for immediate change of designations from their original post since appointed or last held or to one which the employees are being presently utilized and engaged in the respective office. 4. In pursuant to the aforesaid Circular, the Petitioner made an application for change of his designation from Bill Clerk to LDA. A provisional interview for considering such change of designation was conducted by the Selection Committee, constituted by the Board on 4.7.95 and his designation was changed as per the approval of the Committee from Bill Clerk to LDA vide order dated 18.11.95. 5. On 19.12.95, the Petitioner was transferred and posted in the office of the Chief Engineer (RMW) designating him as LDA. The Petitioner vide his application dated 22.11.95 prayed for fixing his inter-se- seniority in the cadre of LDA w.e.f. 18.11.95 and also to pay him the salary of LDA and the said application was forwarded to the higher authorities. Vide another order dated 6.12.95 issued by the Chief Engineer (B), the Petitioner was designated as LDA at the office of the Addl. Chief Engineer, (E) RE Wing indicating therein that his pay and allowance should be drawn from the office of the Chief Engineer (Distribution). 6. Vide another communication dated 26.4.96 made by the Chief Engineer (D) while distributing office work in the office, described the Petitioner as LDA and attached to one Sri K.C. Puri, the then Executive Engineer as LDA. 7. Though the Respondent issued another order on 1.5.96 wherein the Petitioner has described as LDA-Typist. 6. Vide another communication dated 26.4.96 made by the Chief Engineer (D) while distributing office work in the office, described the Petitioner as LDA and attached to one Sri K.C. Puri, the then Executive Engineer as LDA. 7. Though the Respondent issued another order on 1.5.96 wherein the Petitioner has described as LDA-Typist. Thereafter, suddenly vide office order dated 25.3.97, the Petitioner was permanently absorbed as Typist in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1995/- per month with immediate effect until further orders. 8. The Petitioner, against the aforesaid action of the authority in absorbing him as Typist permanently, though filed representation dated 19.4.97 but the same was without any result. The Respondent authorities vide office order dated 27.6.97 issued a provisional gradation list of Typist wherein the Petitioner has been described as LDA-Typist and his original appointment in the Head office has been shown as Typist. Another gradation list of LDA was also published on 27.6.97 wherein the name of the Petitioner does not find place. 9. The Petitioner from time to time filed representations highlighting his grievances, but the same were without any result. In his representation dated 11.8.98, the Petitioner asserted that he successfully passed the examination in the post of Junior Assistant in the Board Secretariat and in the merit list he got his position at Serial No. 9. Although the candidates' upto Serial No. 8 were already appointed as Junior Assistants, he was not appointed though his turn came up. The said representation of the Petitioner was forwarded to the appropriate authority by the Addl. Chief Engineer (MM). 10. Vide another order dated 20.12.02, it is notified that in the meeting of the Board held on 9.9.02 it was decided to re-designate the posts of Typists in the Headquarter offices of the Member (Technical), Chief Engineers and Additional Chief Engineers, held by the employees those names appeared in the final gradation list of Typists (HQ) issued vide office Order No. PER.II/198/97/11 dated 27.6.97 and Addendum dated 24.2.98 as LDA-Typist carrying the existing scale of pay of Rs. 5000-9400/- per month. It is further stated in the said order that thenforth there would be a combined gradation/seniority list of the existing LDAs of the Headquarter offices of the Member (Technical), Chief Engineers and Additional Chief Engineers with the above re-designated LDA-Typist wherein the seniority of the latter will be fixed below the existing LDAs. 11. 5000-9400/- per month. It is further stated in the said order that thenforth there would be a combined gradation/seniority list of the existing LDAs of the Headquarter offices of the Member (Technical), Chief Engineers and Additional Chief Engineers with the above re-designated LDA-Typist wherein the seniority of the latter will be fixed below the existing LDAs. 11. Since the grievances of the Petitioner relating to his designation as LDA and payment of salary attached to the post of LDA have not been meted out by the Respondent authorities, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 12. A counter has been filed on behalf of the Respondents opposing the prayer of the Petitioner. The stand of the Respondents is that the Petitioner was originally appointed as Bill Clerk and by mis-representing the Selection Committee, he got his designation changed from Bill Clerk to LDA and later on the same was corrected by the authority designating him as LDA-Typist, although at certain point of time while he was working in the Head office, he was designated as LDA and the Petitioner has no right to be designated as LDA nor to claim salary payable to LDA. 13. The basic grievance raised by the Petitioner is that his initial appointment was as Bill Clerk and the character and status was changed from Bill Clerk to LDA after necessary scrutiny by the Selection Committee in terms of the Notification issued by the Board in conformity of the policy decision of the Board for such re-designation. 14. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was never appointed as a Typist and as such his permanent absorption as Typist is beyond the scope of provision of Rules and the contract of service. That apart, even prior to his absorption as LDA, the Petitioner was made to work as LDA although at that point of time his designation was only Bill Clerk and taking note of the purpose for which re-designation was made in terms of the Circular dated 17.12.94, the Petitioner is entitled to be continued with his designation as LDA and since he has been rendering the services of LDA, he is entitled to the pay earmarked for the post of LDA. 15. Mr. 15. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Board submits that the re-designation of the Petitioner was made only due to mis-representation of the Petitioner which was subsequently corrected by designating him as LDA-Typist Although for certain period of time he was designated as Typist but the said position is no longer exists and presently his designation is LDA-Typist. The connected records as well as Service Book of the Petitioner have also been produced before the Court by Mr. Kharmih. 16. Rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties received due attention of this Court, which led the Court to consider the purpose for which the re-designation was required to be done by the Respondent authorities. 17, Vide Circular dated 17.12.94 such option for re-designation was called for from the interested employees. For ready reference, the content of said Circular is quoted herein below: Circular It has come to the notice of the Board that quite a number of representations have comeforth from certain categories of Board's employees requesting for an immediate change of designation of their post. That is, for a change of designation from their original post since appointed or last held to the one against which post an employee is being presently utilized and engaged in by his/her respective office. Therefore to enable the undersigned to assess and ascertain the actual number of such engagement cases continuously for over years, it is considered essential that all officers of the Board should furnish the cases of all such employees under their administrative control strictly as per prescribed proforma enclosed herewith on or before 31st December, 1994 so as to enable the Board to settle and regularize this matter once and for all. This Circular may please be widely circulated for the general information of all concerns. This issued with the approval of the Chairman. 18. Form the above circular, it transpires that the very purpose of such re-designation was to provide necessary designation to those categories of employees whose services were being utilized and engaged in posts other than in which they were appointed originally. This issued with the approval of the Chairman. 18. Form the above circular, it transpires that the very purpose of such re-designation was to provide necessary designation to those categories of employees whose services were being utilized and engaged in posts other than in which they were appointed originally. The stand of the Petitioner is that all along he is serving as LD A under the Board and he was duly found qualified by the Selection Committee constituted by the Board and for the purpose, to be fit for re-designated as LDA changing his original designation of Bill Clerk which is reflected from the office order dated 18.11.95. 19. After issuance of the order dated 18.11.95, a notification on the same day was also published by the authority. But interestingly in the said notification in its operative part a line/sentence was added to the effect that -- "This change of designation does not however involve any financial benefit", which may be seen from the notification as produced by Mr. Kharmih, learned Counsel for the Respondent, which is brought on record. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the Respondents/Board as to under what authority the aforesaid line could be incorporated later on although it was not in the original order. This appears to be made with certain sinister design, which is other than bonafide. A notification must be in conformity with the original order and there cannot be any departure therefrom. But in the instant case, as indicated above, there is a departure to such an extent which had the effect of depriving the financial benefits to the deserving employees, and is impermissible in nature. 20. Although Respondents has taken a stand that the Petitioner has got his re-designation as LDA from Bill Clerk by mis-representation, but in the absence of any material to support the allegation, such a stand can not be accepted, No materials and records could be pointed out before the Court to arrive at such a conclusion. On the other hand, from record it is found that the selection was made by a competent committee constituted by the Board itself. On the other hand, from record it is found that the selection was made by a competent committee constituted by the Board itself. From the various orders issued time and again passed by the Chief Engineers/Additional Chief Engineers disclose that the Petitioner was working as LD A. In the Service Book (Part- II) of the Petitioner at page-16, an endorsement was made to the following effect: Selection Committee vide notification No. PER-II/235/88/05 dt. Nov/95, are hereby allowed to change designation from original post, vide Board's O.O. No. PER-II/225/88/96 dated 18.11.95. 21. After making the aforesaid endorsement in the Service Book, the Petitioner was described as LDA all through out till 17.4.97 when he was absorbed permanently as Typist. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the end of the Respondent authorities as to how and why the Petitioner could be absorbed as Typist while he was re-designated by the Respondent authorities itself as LDA. 22. The condition of service of the Petitioner is regulated by a set of regulations in Meghalaya State Electricity Board's Service Regulation, 1996. In terms of the said Regulations, the Meghalaya State Electricity Board, Administrative Service under which category the Petitioner falls, in Clause-III category, there are four different categories of posts in the office of the Chief Engineers/Additional Chief Engineers and these are Superintendent/UDA/LDA/LDA-Typist. In the Circle office, however, under Clause-III category, the posts mentioned are Superintendent/UDA/LDA. 23. It is not disputed at the Bar that the Petitioner served in the office of the Chief Engineers/Additional Chief Engineers as LDA and service Regulations having not contained any cadre of post like Typist, the absorption of the Petitioner as Typist is against the provision of the Regulations meaning thereby the Petitioner was absorbed in a non-existing cadre. The Petitioner was to be absorbed permanently either as LDA or LDA-Typist which are the only categories available in the Clause-II category and the posts befitting to the status of the Petitioner. 24. It is found that subsequently vide impugned order dated 20.11.02, the employees who were in the posts of Typists under Headquarters office were re-designated as LDA-Typist. In view of the aforesaid notification, the absorption of the Petitioner must not be made as Typist but as LDA-Typist, even on their own stand of the Respondent authorities, of course, currently the Petitioner is holding the post of LDA-Typist and not as a Typist. 25. In view of the aforesaid notification, the absorption of the Petitioner must not be made as Typist but as LDA-Typist, even on their own stand of the Respondent authorities, of course, currently the Petitioner is holding the post of LDA-Typist and not as a Typist. 25. The contention raised by the Petitioner therefore leaves another issue to be addressed as to whether in view of his re-designation as LDA-Typist and allowing him to work as LDA, which can be seen from the various communications from the different Chief Engineers/Additional Chief Engineers of the Board, he is entitled to get the benefit of pay scale attached to the post of LDA or not. 26. On the face of the submission of Mr. Sharma, the Petitioner is still discharging the service rendering the work of LDA. Circular dated 17.12.94 (extracted above) clearly demonstrate the need for such re-designation was in view of continuance of such of the employees, in service, other than the post where they have been originally appointed. The Petitioner having been engaged to render the services of LDA, he applied for such re-designation in terms of the aforesaid Circular which was allowed by the Selection Committee after meticulous scrutiny. That apart, further stand of the Petitioner is that he was also selected for being appointed as Junior Assistant in the Board's Secretariat and all persons selected above him have already been appointed parting him, but the authority did not consider his appointment in spite of such selection. This may probably for the reason that the Petitioner has already rendered the service of LDA and hence he need not be provided with the post of Junior Assistant in the Board's Secretariat. But although to that effect on several occasions representation was made but those are not yet considered and no reason is forthcoming from the end of the Board to that effect, nor the connected record disclose such consideration. 27. In view of what has been indicated above, the stand of the Board/Respondent authorities that the Petitioner got his post redesignated as LDA by mis-representing the Board, can not be accepted and it is found that he was duly re-designated as per recommendation made by the selection committee. 28. 27. In view of what has been indicated above, the stand of the Board/Respondent authorities that the Petitioner got his post redesignated as LDA by mis-representing the Board, can not be accepted and it is found that he was duly re-designated as per recommendation made by the selection committee. 28. In view of the above discussion what is yet to be done at this stage as appropriate for consideration of the Board providing the status of LDA to the Petitioner from that of LDA-Typist, which he is presently holding. It is no doubt true that post of LDA is higher in rank than that of LDA-Typist carrying higher scale of pay. There is specific provision as regards promotion from lower grade to higher grade in the service Regulations through the departmental promotional committee as contained in Clause-37 of the Regulations. But the Respondent authority/Board vide Circular referred to above decided to redesignate the posts of those employees who were working in categories other than the posts in which they were originally appointed by taking a policy decision. That apart, Clause-113 of the Regulations provides the power of relaxation of any of the provision of Regulation. It is not on record that as to whether the other similarly situated persons whose designation were changed like that of the Petitioner were paid the higher scale of pay or not. 29. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition stands disposed of quashing the permanent absorption of the Petitioner as Typist vide order dated 25.3.97 and the Petitioner's present designation as LDA-Typist he continued till final decision to be taken by the authority to restore his designation as LDA as conferred on him vide order dated 18.11.95 and if the Petitioner is found to have continued to discharge the function of a LDA, he would also be entitled to be paid the consequential salary of LDA. The Respondent authorities are restrained from taking shelter to the endorsement in the notification dated 18.11.95 to the effect that -- "This change of designation does not however involve any financial benefit" (a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-VII) for refusing the Petitioner the necessary consequential financial benefits, if he is otherwise so entitled to. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 30. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 30. In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. 31. No costs. Petition allowed