JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:-- 1. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. B. Das, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty for the petitioner and learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Ms. P. Sen for the respondents. 2. The petitioner contended that he was employed in the Tripura Rehabilitation Plantation Corporation Ltd. (for short, TRPC) in the post of Head Clerk and was posted in the South Zone office at Udaipur. The Tripura State Civil Services(Revised Pay) Rules, 1988(for short ROP Rules, 1988) came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1986 but the pay of the petitioner was not fixed in accordance with the said ROP Rules and therefore he filed writ petition before the High Court and in Writ Appeal No. 64 of 1997 by order dated 28.04.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court partially allowed the writ appeal of the petitioner and directed the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 810/- in the pre-revised scale and thereafter to fix his pay under the ROP Rules, 1988. Respondents, thereafter fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 810/- per month in the scale of Rs. 600-1440/- and thereafter he was given the interim higher scale according to the rules, named as “Modified Present Scale” which was Rs. 650-1595/- and thereafter his pay was fixed in the revised scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- and accordingly by Memo. dated 23.08.2005 as on 01.06.1986 his pay was fixed at Rs. 1930/- and as on 01.06.1998 his pay was fixed at Rs. 2855/- and that fixation was correctly made and a copy of that fixation order dated 23.08.2005 is annexed as Annexure-B to the writ petition. 2.1. An undertaking was taken from the petitioner that in case of any mistake, if any excess payment is made, he will be bound to pay the same. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-C to the writ petition. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 reduced the pay of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was not entitled to “Modified Present Scale” and directed respondent No. 3 to take step accordingly by writing a letter dated 28.09.2006(Annexure-D to the writ petition) and against that letter the petitioner submitted his representation dated 22.02.2007(Annexure-E to the writ petition). 2.2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 re-fixed the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 1450-3710 as on 01.01.1986 at Rs. 2.2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 re-fixed the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 1450-3710 as on 01.01.1986 at Rs. 1750/- and in the scale of Rs. 5500-10700/- as on 01.06.1996 in the scale of Rs. 7300/-. 2.3. The petitioner by filing the writ petition challenged order dated 12.11.2008(Annexure-F to the writ petition) and prayed for setting aside and/or quashing that order and also prayed for upholding the fixation dated 23.08.2005(Annexure-B to the writ petition). 3. Respondents by filing counter affidavit, inter alia, contended that ROP Rules, 1988 was adopted by the corporation with some modifications and a copy of adoption is annexed at Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner’s pay was supposed to be fixed at Rs. 810/- in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 600-1440/-. The petitioner joined the corporation on 31.05.1986(afternoon) and since he was not in the service at all, at the time when ROP Rules, 1988 came into force, he was not entitled to “Modified Present Scale” of Rs. 650-1595/- for fixation of his pay in the revised scale of Rs. 1450-3710 as per ROP Rules, 1988. There was a mistake in fixing his pay by Memo. dated 23.08.2005(Annexure-B to the writ petition) and that mistake has been subsequently corrected by way of re-fixation of his pay by the impugned order dated 12.11.2008(Annexure-F to the writ petition). Respondent No. 2 while re-fixing the pay has assigned adequate reason in Annexure-F to the writ petition and there is nothing wrong in the re-fixation, whereas, it is necessary in the public interest. 4. Indisputably, the petitioner joined in the post of Head Assistant(re-designated as Head Clerk) under the respondent-TRPC in the afternoon on 31.05.1986, as a direct recruit. ROP Rules, 1988 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The petitioner was not in the service at the time when ROP Rules came into force. Since the petitioner was a direct recruit after the ROP Rules, 1988 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1986, his pay was supposed to be fixed in the scale of pay which was applicable to the post of Head Clerk in the pre-revised scale and thereafter he would be entitled to the revised scale with effect from the date of his joining the post under the respondent-corporation. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the Writ Appeal (Annexure-A to the writ petition) is very specific in respect of the pre-revised pay scale applicable to the petitioner. In para 8 of the judgment the Court observed-- 8. As the petitioner is not entitled to pay scale of Rs. 2000-4410/- as claimed by him, as there is no post of OS under the Corporation, we dispose of the writ appeal with the observation that the basic pay of the writ petitioner shall be at Rs. 810/- as on 31-5-86 in the unrevised pay scale of Rs. 600-1440/- and the writ petitioner shall grant the required benefits of the revision of ROP, 1988 and subsequent revision, if any. 5. It is an admitted position that ROP Rules, 1988 was adopted by the corporation for its employees. Part B, item No. 40(C) of the ROP Rules, 1988 relates to Tribal Rehabilitation, Plantation and Primitive Group Programme but there is no mention of the pay scale of Head Clerk in item No. 40(C) of the ROP Rules, 1988. However, it is dealt with in Part-B, item No. 1 of the said Rules wherein pay scale of Head Clerk has been prescribed and on perusal of Annexure-R/1 submitted by the respondents with the counter affidavit, I find the same pay scale has been prescribed for the post of Head Clerk and there is a mention of “Modified Present Scale”. Taking the queue from that entry the petitioner claimed that his initial pay was supposed to be fixed after taking into account “Modified Present Scale” and thereafter to fix his pay in the revised pay scale as per ROP Rules, 1988. I am of considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get a fixation in the said manner. The petitioner was not in the service at all as on 01.01.1986. He joined the service on 31.05.1986 in the afternoon and so his pay was fixed w.e.f. 01.06.1986 in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 600-1410/- at Rs. 810/- and thereafter he was given the benefit of the revised scale of 1988. It is, therefore, apparent that the fixation by Memo. dated 23.08.2005 was incorrect and in the public interest the respondents by impugned order dated 12.11.2008(Annexure-F to the writ petition) re-fixed the pay of the petitioner to which he was actually entitled. 600-1410/- at Rs. 810/- and thereafter he was given the benefit of the revised scale of 1988. It is, therefore, apparent that the fixation by Memo. dated 23.08.2005 was incorrect and in the public interest the respondents by impugned order dated 12.11.2008(Annexure-F to the writ petition) re-fixed the pay of the petitioner to which he was actually entitled. In Annexure-D(letter dated 28.09.2006) written by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 detailed reason has been assigned as to why the re-fixation of the petitioner’s pay was necessary. 6. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition and hence the writ petition stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.