JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri L. Shashibhushan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri K. Jagat, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2.1. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Investigator on ad-hoc basis for a period of 6 (six) months in the Planning Section (Nucleus Cell), Department of Commerce and Industries vide order dated 20-10-1984 issued by the Director of Industries, Government of Manipur along with three others and his ad-hoc service was extended from time to time. Later on, in terms of the policy decision of the State Government for regularisation of ad-hoc services vide Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986, the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was regularised to the post of Investigator (Nucleus Cell) vide order dated 24-09-1986 issued by the Director of Industries, Government of Manipur. 2.2. While the petitioner along with three others were serving as Investigators, the State Government accorded sanction to the re-designation of the post of Investigator as Statistical Supervisor (Nucleus Cell) vide order dated 05-11-1999 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Com.& Ind.), Government of Manipur. The petitioner being the senior-most in the cadre of Statistical Supervisor (Nucleus Cell) was appointed on promotion as Assistant Director (NC) on ad-hoc basis for 6 (six) months or till the post is filled up on regular basis vide order dated 04-01-2000 issued by the Commissioner (Com & Ind.), Government of Manipur. The petitioner's ad-hoc service was extended for another six months on the terms and condition stipulated in the order. 2.3. As an austerity measure and for strengthening the economic condition, the State Government took policy decisions, one of such being that the ad-hoc appointees be reverted to their substantive post and accordingly, the ad-hoc service of the petitioner was not extended and was reverted to his substantive post of Statistical Supervisor (Nucleus Cell). 2.4. After his reversion to his substantive post of Statistical Supervisor, the petitioner started discharging his duties as Statistical Supervisor and has been continuing to do so till date but he has not been paid his pay and allowances for the period from January, 2008 till date. 2.4. After his reversion to his substantive post of Statistical Supervisor, the petitioner started discharging his duties as Statistical Supervisor and has been continuing to do so till date but he has not been paid his pay and allowances for the period from January, 2008 till date. Being aggrieved by non-payment of his pay and allowances as stated above, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27-11-2009 stating therein that while the petitioner has not been paid his pay and allowances for the aforesaid period, his fellow Statistical Supervisors (Nucleus Cell) who are junior to him are being paid their pay and allowances regularly and that the petitioner is facing financial hardship on account of non-release of his pay and allowances. Since the respondents have not yet released his pay and allowances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to pay his pay and allowances. 3. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that 'Nucleus Cell' of the Director of Commerce and Industries came into existence under the Central Plan Scheme, Government of India for collection of statistics SSI (Small Scale Industries) Unit in the districts of the State; that in pursuance of the letter dated 2/5th March, 1984 of the Government of India, one post of Assistant Director of Industries and four posts of Investigator, re-designated as Statistical Supervisor, were created for conducting survey of small scale industries against which the petitioner along with three others were appointed and that their salaries were given out of the fund provided by the Government of India. It is further stated that while the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Director, his substantive post of Statistical Supervisor had remained vacant for more than a year thereby resulting in its automatic lapse and since neither the petitioner could be allowed to hold the said post nor was the fund thereof was released by the Government of India against the post earlier held by the petitioner, no salary could be given to him. It is also stated that despite the proposal being made for strengthening the Nucleus Cell with additional post, no positive reply was received from the Government of India and therefore, non-payment of salary to the petitioner could be said to be illegal. 4. It is also stated that despite the proposal being made for strengthening the Nucleus Cell with additional post, no positive reply was received from the Government of India and therefore, non-payment of salary to the petitioner could be said to be illegal. 4. It is submitted by Shri L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is still discharging his duties as Statistical Supervisor from the day his ad-hoc service as Assistant Director was not extended and was reverted to his substantive post and he has not been removed from his service at all. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is rendering service, he is entitled to his pay & allowances and that the act of the respondents denying him his pay & allowances is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory because the other three Statistical Supervisors who were appointed along with the petitioner and are junior to him, are being paid their pay & allowances regularly. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lakhan Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in 1994 SCC (L & S) 1128(I). On the other hand, Shri K. Jagat, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not seriously disputed the averments made by the petitioner in the present writ petition and the only thing he did was that he took the stand as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition and contended that since no fund was released by the Government of India, no pay & allowances could be given to the petitioner. 5. The relation between the employer and employee is governed by the rules framed for that purpose by the State Government and in case the employee has rendered service to the employer in accordance with the duty entrusted to him, the employee is entitled to his pay and allowance. In the present case, though the petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis as Investigator, he was regularised to the said post of Investigator which was later re-designated as Statistical Supervisor. While the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Statistical Supervisor, he was appointed on promotion as Assistant Director on ad-hoc for about a year after which he was reverted to his substantive post. While the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Statistical Supervisor, he was appointed on promotion as Assistant Director on ad-hoc for about a year after which he was reverted to his substantive post. After the petitioner having been reverted to his substantive post, he has been discharging his duties and therefore, he is entitled to his pay and allowances. 6. The contention of the respondents that since the petitioner was appointed against the post, created under the scheme launched by the Government of India, for which the Government had stopped funding, no salary could be given to the petitioner, is not sustainable in law. The reason given by the respondents in their counter affidavit as to why the Government of India had stopped funding for the post held by the petitioner is that while the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Director on ad-hoc, his substantive post being remained vacant for more than a year had automatically lapsed and the Government of India had instructed them not to fill up the vacant post under the scheme. This reason is unreasonable, unfair and illegal being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Statistical Supervisor, he had a lien even after his being promoted to the post of Assistant Director on ad-hoc which was only a stop-gap arrangement. It might probably be that at the time of initial appointment, the petitioner ought to have been appointed under the scheme conditional upon the nature of the scheme. But the respondents had failed to do so and since the respondents being fully aware of the scheme, had regularised the ad-hoc services of the petitioner and three others, it would be incorrect and unreasonable on the part of the respondents to take the stand that the post held by the petitioner having lapsed, could not be filled up under the scheme and accordingly, no pay and allowances could be released to the petitioner. Further the respondents ought to have taken precautionary measures so as to prevent the post of Statistical Supervisor held by the petitioner from being automatically lapsed while the petitioner was given the charge of Assistant Director on ad-hoc by the respondents. These are the mistakes/problems created by the respondents themselves on account of their own lapses and it is for them to find out solutions. These are the mistakes/problems created by the respondents themselves on account of their own lapses and it is for them to find out solutions. There is no materials on record to show that these problems can be attributed to the petitioner. For no fault of his, the petitioner can not be penalised on technicalities because the State Government being an institution must act fairly and reasonably as model employer. Moreover, the petitioner was appointed along with three other persons, similarly situated and junior to him, who are being paid their pay and allowances regularly and the denial of pay and allowances to the petitioner by the respondents is highly discriminatory resulting in the violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ram Lakhan Prasad's case (Supra), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents be directed to give his pay and allowances at the earliest possible. In Ram Lakhan Prasad's case, one school was taken over with nine teachers including the appellant therein namely Ram Lakhan Prasad without scrutinising the qualifications and when the Government had chosen to do so much later, it was found that the appellant was not a trained teacher. However, the appellant was not removed from service and was allowed to continue functioning as teacher without payment of salary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "In the circumstances, we fail to understand as to how the State can continue to avail itself of the services of the appellant and at the same time declined to pay him. In our view, it was not permissible for the State Government to withhold the payment of salary to the appellant". Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the respondents therein to pay to the appellant his salary and other allowances as from 14-07-1988 when the school was taken over by the Government. The facts of the said case and the present case are not exactly the same but the circumstances in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rendered the decision are similar to that of the present case. In the present case also, the petitioner's service is being availed by the State Government but has been denied his pay and allowances which is impermissible, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court hereinabove 8. In the present case also, the petitioner's service is being availed by the State Government but has been denied his pay and allowances which is impermissible, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court hereinabove 8. In view of the above observations, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner his pay and allowances for the period from the month of January, 2008 till date within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There will be no order as to costs.