Judgment SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J. 1. 1. AGGRIEVED by the inaction on the part of the appellants in releasing the arrear salaries and allowances in terms of the rules for Revision of Pay 2 and Allowances (ROPA) of 1981 and 1990 and the leave pay equivalent to eight months' salary the respondent no. 1 who had retired as the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of Ballygunge Training Institute (the Institute, for short) filed a writ petition. The writ petition was not contested by the State respondents and no affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition was filed by them. 2. THE grievances made by the petitioner were found to be just by the learned single Judge who concluded that there was no reason why the petitioner had been denied the actual benefits of the two ROPAs. The writ petition was allowed with a direction upon the appellant no. 2 herein to compute the arrears due and payable to the petitioner in terms of those two ROPAs and release the same to him within three months from the date of the order. The leave salary due and payable to the petitioner was also directed to be released within the said period. The learned single Judge found the petitioner to be eligible to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on outstanding arrears with effect from March 1, 1981 in terms of ROPA, 1981 and with effect from June 1, 1988 in terms of ROPA, 1990 as well as on the leave salary from August 1, 1991 till full payment to the petitioner. 3 After the writ petition was thus allowed the present appellants decided to challenge the same by filing an appeal therefrom. 3. THE appellants' specific case is that the Institute where the writ petitioner had worked was at best a Government Sponsored Industrial Training Centre which was not equivalent to Non-Government Degree Colleges nor the Sponsored Polytechnics. This was an Institute which conducts certificate courses for one year and imparts training in various subjects but the Non-Government Degree Colleges and Sponsored Polytechnics impart courses of study for a duration of three years. The Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Education had granted no objection with regard to the appointment of the respondent no. 1 herein as a Head Clerk-cum-Accountant only as a special case. The Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Education had granted no objection with regard to the appointment of the respondent no. 1 herein as a Head Clerk-cum-Accountant only as a special case. The terms and conditions of his service were governed and controlled under the rules and regulations of the Institute like any other employee of the said Institute. It has been case of the appellant that the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal by a communication dated December 18, 1992 had intimated the Director of Technical Education that the Governor had been pleased to sanction revision of scale of pay to different categories of teaching and non-teaching posts of the said Institute notionally with effect 4 from April 1, 1981 and January 1, 1986 respectively. But it was specifically mentioned that no arrear prior to December 1, 1991 would be paid. The petitioner had exercised his option and enjoyed his revised scale of pay in terms of the said order dated December 18, 1992. The judgment and order of the learned single Judge was also assailed on the ground that the revision of scale of pay of the employees of the said Institute was not under consideration of the Pay Commission. The employees were not entitled to get the benefit of either of the ROPAs unless the Government had decided to extend the same to them. 4. IT was also the case of the appellants that if any benefit beyond what was stipulated in the letter dated December 18, 1992 is provided to the petitioner similarly placed other employees would be treated discriminatorily. The direction to release the leave salary has also been sought to be resisted on the ground that the Government Order which had introduced the leave salary for the employees of the Sponsored Polytechnics was issued much after the petitioner had retired and as such the petitioner was not entitled to its benefits. There is no good denying that under ROPA, 1981 all the whole time occupants of posts on the existing scale of pay were paid revised scale with effect from April 1, 1981. The respondent no. 1's grievance was that he was 5 granted such revised scale of pay notionally with effect from April 1, 1981, but no arrears was granted prior to December 1, 1991. The respondent no. 1's grievance was that he was 5 granted such revised scale of pay notionally with effect from April 1, 1981, but no arrears was granted prior to December 1, 1991. It was clearly stipulated in the memo dated July 31, 1981 that the Governor had been pleased to direct that in sponsored and aided recognized educational institutions including libraries and day student home whole-time occupants as described in the columns annexed thereto shall be entitled to draw revised scale of pay. 5. IN the Government Order issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal it was specifically mentioned that by the order of the Governor the proposal for revision of existing scales of pay of the said Institute had been under active consideration of the State Government for some time and the Governor was pleased to sanction revision of the scales of pay to different categories of teaching and non-teaching posts of the Institute with effect from April 1, 1981 and April 1, 1986 respectively. The employees' pay in the 1981 pay scale on or after April 1, 1981 should be fixed notionally under ROPA, 1981. It was also provided that on the basis of notional pay so arrived as on January 1, 1986 or on any subsequent date of the option but not beyond January 1, 1990, their pay in the 1990 pay scale should again be notionally fixed under ROPA but no arrear prior to December 1, 1991 shall be paid. 6 The appellant has decided to selectively rely on the provisions contained in this communication. The provision so contained in that communication clearly belies the contention of the appellants that the employees of the Institute were not entitled to the benefit of any of the ROPAs. But at the same time they maintained that no arrear prior to December 1, 1991 was to be paid to any of the employees in terms of the said communication. So far as the petitioner is concerned the contention of the appellants that he was given appointment as a special case and as such he could not ask for similar treatment as with other regular employees is clearly not maintainable. Even if an employee is given an appointment to a post as a special case he cannot be subsequently denied the benefit of service which the post carries. Even if an employee is given an appointment to a post as a special case he cannot be subsequently denied the benefit of service which the post carries. The communication dated December 18, 1992 clearly mentioned that the scale revised for the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of the Institute should be treated as personal to the writ petitioner. But so long as he continued to hold the post he was entitled to draw all benefits attached to the post. The appellant has strongly relied on the communication dated December 14, 1991 made by the Assistant Secretary to the Department of Education, Government of West Bengal to the Administrator of the Institute that the post of the Head Clerk-cum-7 Accountant is treated to similar categories of those of the Sponsored Degree Colleges. It was also mentioned that the said post did not exist in the recognized Non-Government Secondary Schools at present. This was followed by yet another communication dated July 10, 1992 issued by the said authority to the Deputy Director of Technical Education (BH) and to the Administrator of the Institute to the effect that the post the respondent no. 1 was holding should be treated at par with similar categories of staff in the Sponsored Degree Colleges. It was specifically mentioned in the said letter that as the said post did not exist in the recognized Non-Government Secondary Schools the service conditions and scale of pay of the respondent no. 1 would be governed by the rules as applicable to the Head Clerk of the Sponsored Degree Colleges. 6. IF the Institute is a non-vocational class X standard Non-Government Secondary School as communicated by the Assistant Secretary, Department of Education, Government of West Bengal to the Director of Technical Education, West Bengal the respondent no. 1 was also entitled to get the leave salary for 240 days and is entitled to get all the service conditions and scale of pay as admissible to the post he held. There is enough justification in the submission of the respondent no. 1 that the status of the Institute as a non-vocational non-Government 8 secondary school being covered under the ROPAs cannot be taken away by any administrative order. There is enough justification in the submission of the respondent no. 1 that the status of the Institute as a non-vocational non-Government 8 secondary school being covered under the ROPAs cannot be taken away by any administrative order. The strong reliance made by the appellants on the memo dated December 18, 1992 cannot take away the provisions of the ROPA and the reliance placed upon the memo by the appellants to the effect that none is entitled to get any benefit beyond what is granted by the said letter seems not to be based on sound logic. An administrative order can never undo a right which has accrued in favour of the petitioner. While assailing the communication dated December 18, 1992 made by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Education, Government of West Bengal that no arrear prior to December 1, 1991 shall be paid to the employees of the Institute, the respondent has argued that such rejection is without any reason rendering the entire exercise bad. In this connection strong reliance has been placed upon the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 which laid down the requirement about recording all its reasons for a decision of an administrative authority exercising quasi judicial functions as it achieves the object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. 7. IT is far to well settled that an administrative authority is required to record reasons for its decision unless the requirement has been dispensed 9 with expressly or by necessary implication. Judged from that point of view the order without any reason is not a sustainable one. We have no hesitation to hold that the post and pay being personal to the respondent no. 1 and the same being similar to that of the post of a Head Clerk in Sponsored Degree Colleges the respondent no. 1 is entitled to get the same benefit of the arrears of salaries. We similarly hold that there is no substance in the submission that if the benefits as claimed by the respondent no. 1 is allowed then similarly placed other employees will be treated discriminatorily. It is always a question of right of an employee. 1 is entitled to get the same benefit of the arrears of salaries. We similarly hold that there is no substance in the submission that if the benefits as claimed by the respondent no. 1 is allowed then similarly placed other employees will be treated discriminatorily. It is always a question of right of an employee. If an employee is entitled to a benefit in law then that cannot be denied on the ground that similarly circumstanced employees were also denied of the said benefits. Such submission of the appellants is an application of perverse equality as the effect of it is that there should be equality in illegality. 8. THE learned single Judge has rightly held that the respondent no. 1 was entitled to the benefits as claimed by him. We find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. 10 The appellant no. 2 is directed to make all payments to the respondent no. 1 within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.