JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. N. Majumder for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Stenographer on 01.04.1976 under the respondent No. 1 in the pay scale of Rs.325-665/-. He was, thereafter, promoted to the post of P.A. (Personal Assistant) to the Chairman of Tripura Khadi & Village Industries Board (for short, TKVIB) temporarily on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 30.07.1987 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) pursuant to the post created by the Board vide Resolution No. 23 dated 15.05.1985, adopted in the 90th meeting of the Board of TKVIB. The said resolution was subsequently approved by the State Government by a letter dated 29.07.1987. Being so appointed as P.A. to Chairman, TKVIB, the petitioner was discharging his duties with all sincerity and honesty to the satisfaction of the authority. All on a sudden by order No. TKB/2(120)/84-85/1360-62, dated 01.06.1988 issued by the respondent No. 2, Executive Officer, TKVIB, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Stenographer. The petitioner felt aggrieved, and accordingly challenged the order approaching the High Court by filing Civil Rule No. 270 of 1988 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2.1. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, the Executive Officer of TKVIB vide Memo. dated 12.12.1990 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) revoked the order of reversion dated 01.06.1988 and reinstated the petitioner in the post of P.A. to Chairman with retrospective effect from 01.06.1988. It was further provided in the Memo. dated 12.12.1990 that the petitioner had been reinstated as a regular employee of TKVIB to the post of P.A. to Chairman in the pay scale of Rs.2,000-4430/- with retrospective effect from 01.06.1988 with all financial benefits, seniority and without break of service since his joining as P.A. to Chairman on 30.07.1987. Pursuant to the amicable settlement, the petitioner withdrew Civil Rule No. 270 of 1988. 2.2. While the petitioner was working as P.A. to Chairman, TKVIB, the benefit of Revision of Pay Rules, 1999 (for short ROP 1999) was not extended to the petitioner though the benefit of that rule was extended to other employees. Pursuant to the amicable settlement, the petitioner withdrew Civil Rule No. 270 of 1988. 2.2. While the petitioner was working as P.A. to Chairman, TKVIB, the benefit of Revision of Pay Rules, 1999 (for short ROP 1999) was not extended to the petitioner though the benefit of that rule was extended to other employees. Similarly situated such employees got the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the pay scale of the petitioner was supposed to be revised to Rs.6,500-12,300/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 but the benefit was not extended to the petitioner. 2.3. He submitted representations on 07.06.2001 and 04.07.2003 (Annexure-C and Annexure-D respectively to the writ petition) but still the benefit was not extended to him. By a letter dated 20.08.2003 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) he was informed by the Executive Officer of TKVIB that the Finance Department observed that the post of P.A. to the Chairman was created for six months and no further continuation was sought and, as such, the post could not continue beyond six months and as a result the post was abolished and lapsed long back. However, the existing Jr. Stenographer may work as P.A. to the Chairman. The petitioner contended that the observation of the Finance Department which was communicated by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner was highly arbitrary and unsustainable since the petitioner was already confirmed in the post of P.A. to Chairman on his satisfactory completion of probation period. 2.4. It is stated by the petitioner that he had withdrawn Civil Rule No. 270 of 1988 on the specific and categorical assurance given by the respondents that he would be reinstated to the post of P.A. to Chairman, and thereafter the respondents would not take a stand contrary to the assurance given and contrary to Memo. dated 12.12.1990 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The petitioner contended that he was promoted to the post of P.A. to Chairman against a duly created post with the approval of the authority and the said post was in existence since its creation and the service of the petitioner was utilized continuously in the post without any interruption, and therefore the respondents were barred in taking a stand that the post was abolished after six months. 2.5. 2.5. Since the benefit of ROP 1999 was not extended to the petitioner though he was continuously serving in the post of P.A. to Chairman, he issued a demand notice on 27.08.2003 through his advocate, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty (Annexure-F to the writ petition) but the respondents on receipt of the demand notice did not address the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed WP(C) No. 424 of 2003 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Agartala Bench of the then Gauhati High Court inter alia claiming the benefit of ROP 1999 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and also praying for cancellation of letter dated 20.08.2003 (Annexure-E to the writ petition). The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 12.12.2008 observing that the petitioner was still continuing in his service in the post of P.A. to Chairman and he was going to retire on 31.03.2009 on his attaining the age of superannuation and so there was urgency in the matter which needs to be disposed of at the hand of the State Government, and therefore the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Government, i.e. the respondent No. 3 to do the needful and to pass appropriate order taking into consideration all relevant factors and further directed that the entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible and not later than 31.01.2009. 2.6. Thereafter, Principal Secretary to the Finance Department, vide Memo. dated 17.01.2009 (Annexure-J to the writ petition) held that the petitioner was not entitled to the revised pay scale since the post of P.A. to Chairman was created for six months and thereafter no proposal for continuation of the said post was submitted by the TKVIB and, consequently, no concurrence was accorded by the Finance Department for continuation of the post and, hence, the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of ROP 1999. 2.7. The petitioner contended that Memo. dated 17.01.2009 was issued mechanically and arbitrarily without examining the relevant materials to the great disadvantage of the petitioner ignoring the observation of the High Court in the order dated 12.12.2008. The petitioner contended that on flimsy, technical and superficial ground the benefit of ROP 1999 was refused though similar benefit was extended to others. The petitioner contended that Memo. dated 17.01.2009 was issued mechanically and arbitrarily without examining the relevant materials to the great disadvantage of the petitioner ignoring the observation of the High Court in the order dated 12.12.2008. The petitioner contended that on flimsy, technical and superficial ground the benefit of ROP 1999 was refused though similar benefit was extended to others. It is also contended by the petitioner that the Director of Industries (respondent No. 4) by a letter dated 27.12.1999 (Annexure-L to the writ petition) observed that the benefit of ROP 1999 was not extended to 47 posts of 20 designations on the ground that in respect of those posts, posts creation formalities were not followed, but subsequently the benefit was extended to 12 posts out of 47 posts, vide letter dated 01.01.2004 (Annexure-M to the writ petition). The petitioner, therefore, alleged that though the benefit was extended to some of the posts which were included in the letter of respondent No. 4 dated 27.12.1999 but the petitioner was ignored and was not given the same benefit. 2.8. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, by a letter dated 04.10.2008 (Annexure-N to the writ petition), addressed to respondent No. 4, Director of Industries, requested the State Government to consider extension of benefit of ROP 1999 to the six posts of five designations including the post of P.A. to Chairman but no action was taken by the Department of Industries and the Finance Department. The Chairman of TKVIB also by writing a letter dated 31.01.2009 (Annexure-O to the writ petition) addressed to the Minister of Industries & Commerce made the same request to extend the benefit of ROP 1999 to the post of P.A. to Chairman and similar some other posts. 2.9. The petitioner retired from the service on 30.06.2009 while working in the post of P.A. to Chairman. It is stated by the petitioner that the Executive Officer, i.e. the respondent No. 2 by writing a letter dated 05.02.2009 (Annexure-P to the writ petition) requested the Director of Industries & Commerce (respondent No. 4), referring to Resolution No. 4 of the 195th meeting of the Board held on 08.12.2008 to take necessary steps for continuation of seven posts including the post of P.A. to Chairman. It is further stated that in response to letter dated 03.04.2009, the Manager (M & RM), Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura conveyed approval of the Government (Annexure-Q to the writ petition) for continuation of 35 vacant posts and seven numbers of posts for filling up under TKVIB and it is stated that the said post included the post of P.A. to Chairman. 2.10. Thereafter, by Memo. dated 13.05.2009 (Annexure-R to the writ petition) the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Finance Department asked the TKVIB to revert the petitioner to the substantive post of stenographer on the ground that the petitioner was appointed illegally to the post of P.A. to Chairman. Pursuant to the said impugned Memo. dated 13.05.2009, respondent No. 2 issued impugned Memo. dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure-S to the writ petition), and thereby reverted the petitioner with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 01.03.1988. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before reverting him to the post of Stenographer and thereby the principles of natural justice was violated abruptly, and therefore the said Memo. cannot stand and liable to be quashed. 2.11. The petitioner thereafter submitted representation dated 04.07.2009 against Memo. dated 27.05.2009 and prayed for immediate withdrawal of the Memo. and to give him the benefit of ROP 1999. The copy of the representation annexed as Annexure-T to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner also submitted another representation dated 30.10.2009 to the Minister, Finance but received no response. It is also contended by the petitioner that two other similarly situated employees of TKVIB approached the High Court by filing WP(C) No. 01 of 2008 claiming the benefit of ROP 1999 and the High Court by judgment dated 28.07.2010 (Annexure-V to the writ petition) allowed the writ petition. The petitioner, therefore prayed for quashing and/or cancelling Memo. dated 17.01.2009 (Annexure-J to the writ petition, Memo. dated 13.05.2009 (Annexure-R to the writ petition) and Memo. dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure-S to the writ petition) and also prayed for directing the respondents to extend him the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs.6,500-12,300/- as per ROP 1999 to the post of P.A. to Chairman w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and further to direct the respondents to pay him the salary of the month of May and June, 2009 and release of his leave salary, gratuity, etc. 3. Respondent Nos. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing counter affidavit contended that the benefit of ROP 1999, w.e.f. 01.01.1996 could not be given to the petitioner since respondent No. 3 did not approve such revised pay scale to be given to the petitioner. Prior approval of respondent No. 3 was necessary for giving the said benefit and since it was not approved by respondent No. 3 the benefit could not be given to the petitioner. 4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also contested the case by filing counter affidavit and taken their stand in para 8 of the counter which reads thus: 8. That the relief claimed by the petitioner may not be granted in view of the fact that as per records available from the Tripura Khadi village & Industries Board, it appears that Shri Paul was promoted to the post of P.A. to Chairman on 30.07.1987 against the created post purely on ad-hoc basis. The said promotion was valid up to 28.02.1988 (i.e. 6(six) months validity). No further continuation was sought for from the Tripura Khadi Village & Industries Board and as such the post cannot continue beyond the said 6(six) months. As a result the post was lapsed and abolished long back. The petitioner was reverted to the post of stenographer from the post of P.A. to Chairman. Later on Sri Paul was re-instated to the post of P.A. to Chairman on vide order dated 12.12.09 of Tripura Khadi Village & Industries Board and also allowed the Revision of Pay 1988 to petitioner without concurrence of Finance Department even without knowledge of the Administrative Department. But benefit of R.O.P. 1999 could not be given to the petitioner as the post of P.A. to Chairman was not sanctioned by the Finance Department. Later on, the matter was referred to the Finance Department, and the Finance Department informed that Government is unable to extend the benefit of Revision of Pay Rules as there was no continuation of post of P.A. to Chairman. So, the petitioner was reverted to the post of stenographer from the post of P.A. to Chairman w.e.f. 1.3.88 vide order No. TKV/2(120)/76-77/532-34 dated 27.05.2009 as per direction of Finance Department vide Memo No. F-25(8)-FIN(G)/2008/13 May 2009. So, the petitioner was reverted to the post of stenographer from the post of P.A. to Chairman w.e.f. 1.3.88 vide order No. TKV/2(120)/76-77/532-34 dated 27.05.2009 as per direction of Finance Department vide Memo No. F-25(8)-FIN(G)/2008/13 May 2009. It may be mentioned that a proposal was earlier initiated to the Finance Department for creation of 1(one) supernumerary post of stenographer in Tripura Khadi Village & Industries Board, to comply with the direction of Finance Department in connection with the issue of P.A. to Chairman in Tripura Khadi Village & Industries board. In turn, Finance Department requested to inform whether the original post was created with the concurrence of Finance Department. The Executive Officer, TKVIB was requested by the Industries Department to inform the status. In reply the Executive Officer, Tripura KV IB vide letter No. 28.09.2010 has informed that concurrence of Finance Department for creation of the post is not available with TKVIB. Earlier on 30.11.2009, he mentioned that the post of stenographer was filled up on 19.12.1997, but the incumbent concern did not get the R.O.P. 1999, benefit as the post was never concurred by the Government. However, Finance Department later on agreed to allow revised pay scale to the post of stenographer including 12(twelve) other posts. In view of the above, again the proposal was forwarded to the Finance Department to regularize the service of Dhiresh Paul so as to enable the Board to pay salary, gratuity, leave encashment etc. a supernumerary post of stenographer is to be created for the period of 01.03.1988 to 30.06.2009 (dated of retirement) with a decision to allow R.O.P. 1988, R.O.P. 1999 and R.O.P. 2009. It is also contended by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the benefit of ROP 1999 could not be given to the petitioner as the post of P.A. to Chairman was not included in the ROP 1999 and later on the matter was referred to the Finance Department and the Finance Department in turn informed the administrative department that as no continuation for the post of P.A. to Chairman beyond the period of 28.02.1998 was taken, so the Government was unable to extend ROP 1999 benefit to the post of P.A. to Chairman. It is also stated that on the basis of resolution of 195th Board meeting proposals were received from TKVIB on 05.02.2009 for continuation and for filling up of 42 numbers of posts including the post of P.A. to Chairman of TKVIB which was likely to be vacant on 01.07.2009 and it was decided by the Government that the said post may be filled up on deputation basis. The said decision was communicated to TKVIB on 03.04.2009. Later on the petitioner was reverted to the post of Stenographer, w.e.f. 01.03.1988 vide Memo. dated 27.05.2009 as per the direction of the Finance Department vide Memo. dated 13.05.2009 as the post of P.A. to Chairman was not concurred by the Finance Department. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman has submitted that the case of the petitioner is an exceptional case of deprivation of an employee who has served the department with all sincerity and devotion for about thirty eight years and a fatal blow has been dealt by the department on the eve of his retirement. The petitioner committed no wrong during his long period of service, whereas, he has been victimized by the department on numerous occasions which has been reflected in the writ petition. It is contended that it was the duty of the administrative department to approach the State Government for continuation of the post and according to the Finance Department continuation of post has not been sought and, therefore it was lapsed. The petitioner brought on record sufficient instances where the posts created temporarily were allowed to continue but there was no approach made by the administrative department for continuation of such post in time and subsequently ex post facto approval was given. In the case of the petitioner the Finance Department simply has taken a stand that since continuation of post of P.A. to Chairman was not sought in time, the benefit should not be given to the petitioner and by impugned Memo. dated 13.05.2009 directed the TKVIB to revert the petitioner back to the post of Stenographer and that letter focused an arbitrary action on the part of the Finance department. It is also contended by Mr. dated 13.05.2009 directed the TKVIB to revert the petitioner back to the post of Stenographer and that letter focused an arbitrary action on the part of the Finance department. It is also contended by Mr. Roy Barman that since the petitioner was a regular employee and was confirmed in the post of P.A. to Chairman by the administrative department he cannot be deprived from the benefit of ROP 1999 and the order of his reversion dated 27.05.2009 is most illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Majumder appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the sanctioned post of P.A. to Chairman and he was confirmed in the post by the department but the continuation of the post was not sought in time as alleged by the Finance Department, and therefore, since the State respondents did not agree, the benefit of ROP 1999 could not be extended to the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has nothing to do since without approval of the State Government, the said benefit cannot be extended. 7. Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that the post of P.A. to Chairman was created for six months temporarily. Continuation of the post was not sought by the department, and therefore the post was consequently abolished after expiry of six months. However, the benefit of ROP 1988 was extended to the petitioner by the Board without taking any approval of the Finance Department. However, the benefit of ROP 1999 could not be extended since the post was not in existence and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed in the post of Stenographer on 01.04.1976 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of P.A. to Chairman on 30.07.1987, i.e. about after ten years of his service in the post of Stenographer. By an order dated 01.06.1988 he was reverted to the post of Stenographer. He challenged it by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India vide Civil Rule No. 270 of 1988. During pendency of the writ petition by Memo. By an order dated 01.06.1988 he was reverted to the post of Stenographer. He challenged it by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India vide Civil Rule No. 270 of 1988. During pendency of the writ petition by Memo. dated 12.12.1990 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) the petitioner was reinstated in the post of P.A. to Chairman with retrospective effect from 01.06.1988 and he was also regularized and confirmed in the post stating that he completed the probation period satisfactorily. It is to be presumed that Memo. dated 12.12.1990 was issued by the administrative department with the concurrence of the State Government since without concurrence of the State Government the administrative department would not issue such an order confirming the petitioner in the post of P.A. to Chairman. The petitioner had been serving in the post of P.A. to Chairman with all financial benefit w.e.f. 30.07.1987 continuously and he got the benefit of ROP 1988. The State respondents contended that the benefit of ROP 1988 was given to the petitioner without concurrence of the Finance department whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not say so. It is, therefore, presumed that the benefit of ROP 1988 was duly extended to the petitioner since the petitioner was working in the post of P.A. to Chairman. When ROP 1999 came into existence and the benefit was extended to the employees of TKVIB, the same benefit was not extended to the petitioner and the petitioner approached the authority for granting him the benefit and since his representation did not receive positive response he filed writ petition No. 424 of 2003 and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12.12.2008 (Annexure-I) directing the State Government to do the needful in the matter and to pass appropriate order. Pursuant to that order Principal Secretary to the Finance Department issued Memo. dated 17.01.2009 (Annexure-J). 9. The sum and substance of Annexure-J to the writ petition is that the post of P.A. to Chairman was created for six months with the approval of the Finance Department dated 28.07.1987 and after expiry of six months the post was abolished since no extension was sought by the administrative department, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of ROP 1999. It is on record that the Executive Officer of TKVIB and also the Chairman approached the State Government to afford the benefit of ROP 1999 to the post of P.A. to Chairman and some other posts but the Finance Department did not agree. In the letter of the Executive Officer, dated 04.10.2008 (Annexure-N to the writ petition) clarification was given regarding the post of P.A. to Chairman which reads as follows: Due to inadvertent mistake, the post was dropped at the time of submission of information by TKVIB to the 4th Pay Commission. At the time of joining to the posts, F.D. concurrence was there vide memo No. F. DI/KVI/15(160)/Vol-1/87/24665-71 Dt. 29-07-1987 but subsequently no continuation of the post was obtained like all other posts of the board. The other posts of the same nature got ROP 99 benefit except the post of P.A. to Chairman on the plea that the concurrence of F.D. for continuation of post was not obtained by the Administrative Department. 10. Similar clarification was given in the letter written by the Chairman to the Minister of Industries & Commerce dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure-O to the writ petition), but ultimately Finance Department issued impugned letter dated 13.05.2009 (Annexure-R to the writ petition) and in consequence thereto the respondent Nos. 2 issued Memo. dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure-S to the writ petition) and thereby reverted the petitioner to the post of Stenographer after more than thirty years of continuous service in the post of P.A. to Chairman. 11. While the post was initially created with the sanction/approval of the Finance Department, and the petitioner on his promotion was appointed to the post and he was confirmed in the said post after satisfactory completion of probation period, by the administrative department, the Finance Department would give ex post facto approval since in similar many other posts approval was given by the Finance Department. The petitioner committed no wrong in the discharge of his duties under the department. Even if it is presumed that the TKVIB was with fault, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. For the mistake or fault of the department an individual employee cannot be faulted and put to suffer and be deprived of the service benefit which was otherwise due to him. Even if it is presumed that the TKVIB was with fault, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. For the mistake or fault of the department an individual employee cannot be faulted and put to suffer and be deprived of the service benefit which was otherwise due to him. The petitioner continuously served in the post of P.A. to Chairman w.e.f. 30.07.1987 and he got the benefit of ROP 1988 but at the time of giving ROP 1999 the post of P.A. to Chairman was not included in the list by the department inadvertently and subsequently the plea was taken by the Finance Department of the Government of Tripura that there was no continuation of the post of P.A. to Chairman and so the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of ROP 1999. I find no justification at all to deprive an employee from the benefit after such continuous long service for more than thirty eight years in the post and I am of the opinion that the stand of the Finance Department in issuing Memo. dated 17.01.2009 (Annexure-J to the writ petition) was not correct and as such was not tenable. The petitioner, in my considered opinion, is entitled to get the relief(s) claimed in the writ petition. 12. Accordingly, Memo. dated 13.05.2009 (Annexure-R to the writ petition) issued by the Joint Secretary to the Finance Department and Memo. dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure-S to the writ petition) issued by the Executive Officer of TKVIB are set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to give the revised pay scale of Rs.6,500-12,300/- to the petitioner as per ROP 1999 in the post of P.A. to Chairman, w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and also to pay him the salary of May, 2009 and June, 2009 in the admissible pay scale and other service benefits such as gratuity, etc. as per rules. The order should be complied within forty five days from today. 13. The writ petition accordingly allowed and disposed of.