JUDGMENT Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr.Nepolean, learned GA for the State appellants and also heard Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr.C.Kamal, learned CGSC for respondent No.2. 2. The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2012 passed in WP(C) No.500 of 2011. The writ petitioner, Dr.A.Subhas Singh, respondent herein filed the writ petition, WP(C) No.500 of 2011 for a direction to the respondents to make payment of his entitled pension. It was the admitted case that pursuant to the directions issued by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.608 of 2002 and WP(C) No.947 of 2007, a review DPC was held on 24.5.2008 for initial constitution of the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service. On the basis of the recommendation of the said review DPC, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Grade-II/Joint Director, w.e.f. 17.10.1994 vide order dated 27.5.2008. As there was some confusion in the office of the Accountant General, Manipur, regarding the retrospective effect given to the said appointment the Accountant General, vide their letter dated 30.08.2008 sought for clarification from the State Government for giving appointment/promotion of officers to the higher grade with retrospective effect from 17.10.1994 without the concurrence of the Finance Department. The State Government clarified vide letter dated 20.07.2012 that such retrospective effect was given for the purpose of initial constitution of the Manipur Vety & Animal Husbandry Services, Manipur as per the relevant service rules which would not require concurrence from the Finance Department. To this extent there is no dispute amongst the parties. On the basis of the clarification issued by the State Government, the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 14.8.2012 directed the State respondents to release the pay and allowance of the petitioner as Joint Director, w.e.f. 17.10.1994 within a period of three months. 3. However, the State Government having some reservation about the said direction has preferred this writ appeal. According to the appellants, the review DPC which was held on 24.5.2008 on which basis the writ petitioner was appointed as Grade-II/Joint Director vide order dated 27.5.2008 was subsequently reviewed again and superceded by another appointment order dated 25.2.2012 on the basis of a review DPC held on 18.2.2012. According to the appellants, the review DPC which was held on 24.5.2008 on which basis the writ petitioner was appointed as Grade-II/Joint Director vide order dated 27.5.2008 was subsequently reviewed again and superceded by another appointment order dated 25.2.2012 on the basis of a review DPC held on 18.2.2012. According to the State appellants, the petitioner could not make the claim for pensionary benefits as Joint Director on the basis of earlier appointment order dated 27.5.2008, which already stood superceded. It is also the case of the State appellants that the writ petitioner never served as Joint Director either on officiating basis or on regular basis which would have made him entitled to pensionary benefits attached to the post of Grade-II/Joint Director, in terms of F.R 21 (9) read with Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, according to which a person will be entitled pension in the pay scale of the post held by him substantively or on officiating capacity at the time of retirement. 4. According to the State appellants, the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Joint Director on in-charge basis vide order dated 30.11.1995 and even though he was recommended for regular appointment in the Grade-II/Joint Director vide order dated 27.5.2008 the said order was subsequently reviewed and superceded and he retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation as an in-charge Joint Director. Therefore, it is the case of the State appellants that before the petitioner retired from service, he was not serving as Grade-II/Joint Director on regular basis or on officiating basis and as such, the direction issued by the learned single Judge is not in conformity with the Pension Rules and Fundamental Rules as mentioned above. 5. This Court, however, on hearing the parties and on consideration of materials on record finds it difficult to accept the contentions of the State appellants. 5. This Court, however, on hearing the parties and on consideration of materials on record finds it difficult to accept the contentions of the State appellants. From the records it is seen that even though the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Grade-II/Joint Director on in-charge basis vide order dated 30.11.1995 he continued to hold the post of Joint Director till he retired from service is clearly evident from the retirement order which reads as follows: “GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT:VETY & A.H DEPARTMENT ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR:MANIPUR Imphal, the 6th January, 2006 No.3/45/77-Vety: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to allow Dr.A.Subhas Singh, Joint Director (Vety), Ukhrul of Vety & AH Services, Manipur to retire from service w.e.f. 31.12.2005 (AN) on attaining the age of superannuation. By orders & in the name of the Governor Sd/- Deputy Secretary (Vety) Govt of Manipur.” It is also seen from records that though the order dated 27.5.2008 by which the petitioner was appointed to the post of Grade-II/Joint Director in the Vety & AH Services, Government of Manipur, was superceded by a subsequent order dated 25.2.2012 as contended by the State appellants, by the said order dated 25.2.2012 the petitioner has been again appointed to the post of Grade-II/Joint Director on regular basis in the Vety & Animal Husbandry Department w.e.f. 17.10.1984. Thus, even though the earlier regular appointment order dated 27.5.2008 was superceded by the subsequent order dated 25.2.2012 and the petitioner retired before these orders were issued, the writ petitioner continued to be recommended for appointment to Grade-II/Joint Director on regular basis. 6. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court by the State authorities that even though the writ petitioner was appointed as Joint Director on in-charge basis vide order dated 30.11.1985, the writ petitioner had been reverted to a lower substantive post in Grade-III any time thereafter. On the other hand, the records indicate that he continued to serve as Joint Director till his retirement and was subsequently recommended for regular appointment as Joint Director w.e.f. 17.10.1984. 7. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) has submitted that even though the initial constitution of Manipur Vety & A.H Services had been subjected to several reviews because of a number of litigations, writ petitioner had been recommended for appointment to the post of Grade-II/Joint Director by all the subsequent review DPCs. 7. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) has submitted that even though the initial constitution of Manipur Vety & A.H Services had been subjected to several reviews because of a number of litigations, writ petitioner had been recommended for appointment to the post of Grade-II/Joint Director by all the subsequent review DPCs. As per the service rules, appointment at the time of initial constitution of the Manipur Vety & A.H. Services would be always be w.e.f. 17.10.1994. Mr.Nepolean, learned State counsel for the appellant is not able to dispute such a contention made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner with any supporting official document. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that even though the petitioner was initially appointed as Joint Director on in-charge basis vide order dated 30.11.1985, he continued to hold the post as Joint Director till his retirement and he was recommended for regular appointment/absorption to the post of Grade-II/Joint Director at the initial constitution of the Manipur Vety & AH Services, which was to be effective from 17.10.1994. In other words, as per the relevant service rules, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed to the Manipur Vety & AH Services, Grade-II/Joint Director w.e.f. 17.10.1994 on the initial constitution of the Manipur Vety & AH Services. It is also a fact that the petitioner had been serving in the said post of Joint Director since 30.11.1995 till he retired from service on 31.12.2005. In that event, because of the order for initial constitution of the Manipur Vety & AH Services, by which the petitioner was recommended for regular appointment as Joint Director and which was to be given effect from 17.10.1994, the writ petitioner can be deemed to have retired from service while holding the substantive post of Joint Director. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to the pension on the basis of the pay attached to the post of Joint Director. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, this Court does not find any reason or material to interfere with the finding and decision of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.