Judgment and Order (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance that falls for consideration in this writ petition is that the petitioner herein was selected and recommended by the Tripura Public Service Commission, the TPSC in short, for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer, Tripura Engineering Service Grade-V (B) under Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura in terms of the Tripura Public Service Commission Advertisement No. 3 of 2013(Annexure-2 to the writ petition). 3. According to the petitioner he had duly submitted his joining report but the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 2 did not accept his joining report without any reason. Hence, the petitioner is in jeopardy, the petitioner approached this Court urging that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to resume his duties w.e.f. 24.12.2015. 4. Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner did not file his joining report within 31.12.2014 and moreover, the No Objection Certificate from the previous employer was not submitted. In response to such contention, Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner filed the joining report on 24.12.2014 to the Assistant Engineer, Pecharthal Sub-Division, as per direction of the respondent No. 2(see Annexure 7 to the writ petition). Since the said joining report was not accepted, the petitioner on the very same date sent the said joining report by the registered post and the receipt of the said registered letter has also been annexed with the writ petition. 5. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A., at this juncture has submitted that the respondents have admitted that they received the said letter on 01.01.2015 i.e. after the expiry of the joining report but he has categorically stated that the allegations made in the writ petition against the respondent No. 3 are all fabricated and the respondents do not admit such allegations. 6. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A., at this juncture has submitted that the respondents have admitted that they received the said letter on 01.01.2015 i.e. after the expiry of the joining report but he has categorically stated that the allegations made in the writ petition against the respondent No. 3 are all fabricated and the respondents do not admit such allegations. 6. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is not holding any substantive or temporary government post and he was serving under the MGNREGA project as Technical Assistant as would be apparent from the order dated 29.05.2007(Annexure 1 to the writ petition).When the petitioner applied for No Objection Certificate, he was informed that a No Objection Certificate is not at all required because the petitioner was not under any government employment he was merely serving as the Technical Assistant on contract basis. 7. Even the MGNREGA authority has clearly stated in their communication dated 15.06.2013 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) that there is no need for No Objection Certificate to make application for better employment. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus, contended that it clearly reveals that to apply for the Government service, no objection was from the said authority at all required. 8. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. has also pointed out that in the attestation form, the petitioner has stated that he was in the employment earlier. The statement cannot be termed incorrect. The word ‘employment’ carries a broader meaning, which includes engagement even the employment under a contract or casual in nature. 9. Be that as it may, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner will not insist on the allegations those have been levelled against the respondent No. 3 if the respondents allow the petitioner to resume his duties in terms of the joining report dated 24.12.2014. 10. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A has submitted that in this regard, the petitioner ought to have submitted a proper representation to the competent authority for extending the date of his joining. 11. 10. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A has submitted that in this regard, the petitioner ought to have submitted a proper representation to the competent authority for extending the date of his joining. 11. Having considered the submissions and scrutinized the records as produced with the writ petition, this Court is of the view that it is apparent that the petitioner did submit the joining report before the stipulated time and the respondents have categorically admitted that they had received his joining report on 01.01.2015 by post. As such, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner resume his duties accepting his joining from 24.12.2014 but the petitioner will not get any financial benefit till his actual date of joining in terms of the order as would be passed by the respondent No. 3. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order accepting the joining report dated 24.12.2014 within 15 days from the date when a copy of this order will be made available to them by the petitioner. 12. It is made clear that the petitioner would get the benefit of notional fixation w.e.f. 24.12.2014 while fixing his pay and the financial benefits be granted to the petitioner accordingly. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. No order as to costs.