ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The following question was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: “Whether it is proper and valid for the Deputy Chief Engineer (Fuel Handling) Thermal, Power House, Kota in granting regular pay scale from 1st of April, 1989 instead of 1st of April, 1983 to its workman Karamsingh s/o Jagir Singh, Thermal, Kota? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 3. The aforesaid question came to be referred in a situation where on the basis of the recommendation of the Screening Committee constituted by the Government the respondent workman was found eligible for regularization from the year 1989 and grant of regular pay scale with effect from 1st April, 1989. 4. The Industrial Tribunal answered the question by holding the workman to be entitled to regular pay scale as well as regularization with effect from 1st April, 1983. The said view was upheld by the learned single judge of the High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant which led to a letters patent appeal wherein the Division Bench of the High Court modified the order by holding that the workman was entitled to regular scale of pay with effect from 1st April, 1983 but for regularization with effect from 1st April, 1989, Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. The High Court hearing the appeal was in seisin of the matter on a remand made by this Court by order dated 24th November, 2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.1042 of 2006. A perusal of the order dated 24th November, 2006 of this Court would go to show that this Court had held that though the workman may have been found entitled to regular pay scale from 1st April 1983 unless there is a vacant post carrying said pay-scale the same cannot be granted to him. This Court, in the aforementioned order dated 24th November, 2006 held that “the grant of regular pay scale was directly linked to the question of regularization”. This Court, in the aforementioned order dated 24th November, 2006 held that “the grant of regular pay scale was directly linked to the question of regularization”. Accordingly, the matter was remanded along with other connected matter(s) for a de novo consideration by the High Court, inter alia, in the light of the following observation: “While granting permanency, the State has to consider the number of posts falling vacant, those posts should exist as and by way of regular vacancy, the financial burden of granting permanency and, therefore, in our view, the High Court has failed to keep in mind the difference between the concept of grant of pay scale as distinct from grant of permanency.” 7. In the face of the aforesaid view taken by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1042 of 2006, we do not see how the Division Bench of the High Court could have found the workman entitled to regular pay scale from 1st April, 1983 though he was found entitled to regularization with effect from 1st April, 1989. While it is correct that the workman may have been entitled to regular pay scale from 1st April, 1983 grant of the same would have to be linked to the availability of a post carrying that pay-scale. As the same became available from 1st April, 1989, from which date regularization was granted, the High Court, according to us, could not have granted the benefit of regular pay-scale from 1st April, 1983. In that view of the matter, we interfere with the order of the High Court insofar as grant of regular pay scale is concerned and hold that the respondent workman is entitled to the benefit of regular pay-scale as well as regularization with effect from 1st April, 1989. 8. The appeals, consequently, are allowed in the above terms.