Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the balance of Rs.4,60,899/-with interest at 12% per annum being the second instalment of VI Pay Commission arrears, part of gratuity and leave encashment arrears pursuant to representation dated 27.10.2009 made to the first respondent, followed by mercy petitions and reminders to the respondents. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the Animal Welfare Board of India as Stenographer (Junior) on 19.10.1971 and he was made permanent in 1976. According to the petitioner, he was promoted as Personal Assistant, Private Secretary and Desk Officer between 1991 and 2007. According to the petitioner, his services have been utilised in the higher post and the monetary benefits have not been extended to him. Since the petitioner has rendered the services in a higher post and that promotions have been given, he is entitled to the benefits recommended by the VI Pay Commission. It is further stated that he had retired from service on 30.9.2009 and the terminal benefits will have to be paid based on the recommendations of the VI Pay Commission and arrears will have to be released by the respondents together with interest at 12% per annum from the date they became due. The petitioner further submitted that he made representation dated 25.5.2010 and the same is pending for consideration by the respondent. 3. Per contra, Mr.C.Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that it is true that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1971 and he continued in various posts, but there was no post of Consulting Secretary. The learned counsel also submitted that there was no post of Stenographer, Personal Assistant, Private Secretary and Desk Officer. But promotion was given to the petitioner on temporary basis. The post of Personal Assistant was re-designated on the same scale of pay. The promotion was given to the petitioner as Private Secretary purely on temporary on ad hoc basis and the petitioner has no right to claim benefits pursuant to the said post. 4. The respondents further submit that in the year 2009, Internal Audit was conducted by the Office of the Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Internal Audit Wing, which found irregularities in the promotion offered by the first respondent. 4. The respondents further submit that in the year 2009, Internal Audit was conducted by the Office of the Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Internal Audit Wing, which found irregularities in the promotion offered by the first respondent. He further stated that one Ramasamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.23611 of 2010, has appointed the petitioner in the post of Desk Officer and he is not competent to appoint him. The said Ramasamy appointed the petitioner herein without prior approval of the Ministry. That apart, Ramasamy has also misused his position and routed all his papers to the Government to get clearance to appoint the petitioner herein on promotion to higher post and he himself has decided the issue, in the absence of rules and proper sanction/permission by the competent authorities. Since the Animal Welfare Board is a statutory body of the Government of India under the control of Ministry of Finance, and without the approval of the Ministry of Finance, the arrears claimed by the petitioner cannot be disbursed. The irregularities as pointed out by the Internal Audit were rectified and it has been decided to recover the amount from the petitioner. 5. In reply, the petitioner submitted that he was discharging the work in a higher post and the position in which he was occupying is not illegal. It was only irregular, as admitted by the respondents in the counter, and as such he is entitled to the benefits of VI Pay Commission and other reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. 6. Heard both sides. 7. From the narration of facts and also from the Internal Audit Report and the Rules, it is clear that Balakrishnan, the petitioner herein, did not have the requisite qualification as per the Rules and hence he ought not to have been given promotion to the post of Desk Officer by the said Ramasamy, who is the petitioner in WP No.23611 of 2010. It is also reiterated that the said Ramasamy is not a competent person to appoint the petitioner herein in the promotional post. Both parties agreed that unless there is a proper approval by the Ministry, the amount cannot be released to the petitioner. It is also reiterated that the said Ramasamy is not a competent person to appoint the petitioner herein in the promotional post. Both parties agreed that unless there is a proper approval by the Ministry, the amount cannot be released to the petitioner. In fact, in a communication from the Government of India, Animal Welfare Board, dated 29.9.2009, it has been stated that the Animal Welfare Board is instructed not to disburse the pay commission arrears to any staff except Secretary, till upgraded posts are regularised by the competent authority and temporary posts are created/promoted by the Ministry of Finance as on date. 8. It is admitted position that the promotional post has been created for accommodating the petitioner and it has not been recognised by the competent authority. Since there is a dispute with regard to promotion/upgradation/ appointment to the post of Desk Officer and that representation of the petitioner dated 25.5.2010 is pending, that there is an internal communication dated 29.9.2009 regarding a final decision to be taken on the issue in question with regard to regularisation of the post for upgradation and also the creation of temporary posts to be approved by the Ministry of Finance, the relief sought for by the writ petitioner, cannot be granted at this stage. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that the petitioner has been appointed by the said Ramasamy who has no authority to appoint anyone, much less to appoint himself, as in the other case, which is going to be disposed of separately. The contention of the respondents is that Ramasamy has appointed himself and sent the proposal to the Government for approval of his position. Since it is a disputed question of fact and that his representation is pending and the decision is yet to be taken by the Government as seen from the communication dated 29.9.2009 and that in the counter, the respondents have stated that the posting/ upgradation/promotion given to the petitioner is irregular and not illegal, it is directed that the authorities concerned will have to take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner immediately within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While disposing of the matter, the authority concerned should take into account the fact whether the petitioner is working in a higher post and also the provisions of Gratuity Act, if applicable and decide the issue on merits. 10. The petitioner has also relied upon the audit report dated 11.3.2013, wherein it has been stated that the earlier audit report was not correct and that employees have been given upgradation and promotion in higher and redesignated posts without referring to the matter to the administrative body of the Ministry. Taking note of the audit report, which may not be conclusive for appointing/upgrading/promoting a person to higher post, as the same has got to be approved in terms of the rules applicable to the facts of the each case, this Court expects the authority to take a decision on merits as expeditiously as possible, within the time limit stipulated supra. 11. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.