JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant Letter Patent Appeal, appellant-respondent-University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent-University’) has laid challenge to the judgment dated 23.07.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 8123/2008, (for short ‘impugned judgment’), whereby learned Single, while setting aside the order of fixation of pay, dated 23.11.2001 (Annexure A-15), of respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) directed the respondent to release the higher pay to the petitioner for the period he has officiated against the post of Comptroller, i.e. 15.10.1999 to 27.1.2000 and 13.11.2000 to 24.9.2001. 2. It is undisputed that the petitioner, pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondent-University for filling up post of Deputy Comptroller in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700, submitted his application through proper channel and the Selection Committee, after adjudging his suitability, appointed him on the post of Deputy Comptroller on 24.12.1996. It also emerge from the record that pursuant to the request, having been made by the petitioner, case of the petitioner was decided by the State Government vide order dated 29.8.1997 for absorption w.e.f. 1.8.1997. However, the respondent-University absorbed him w.e.f. 7.1.1999. Since the petitioner opted to receive the pro-rata pensionary benefits w.e.f. 24.12.1996, his pay was fixed after absorption w.e.f. 1.1.1997 by the Registrar vide letter dated 10.6.1999. Pay fixation order of the petitioner was sent to the then Joint Comptroller (LA) in the University, who pointed out that since the petitioner took retirement, his pay was to be fixed under the relevant rules applicable to re-employed pensioners. However, as a matter of fact, the then Comptroller clarified the position that the pay of the petitioner was rightly fixed under the normal rules as per the decision of the Board of Management on the recommendations of the Finance Committee vide item No.13(5) in its meeting held on 27.4.1987, but, the Registrar sought clarification from the State Government vide letter dated 1.7.2000, who in turn clarified the matter on 26.6.2001 and accordingly, pay of the petitioner came to be re-fixed in terms of Annexure A-5, dated 23.11.2001. 3. After having gone through the record of the case, this Court finds that pay of the petitioner was fixed in terms of decision of the Board of Management dated 27.4.1987 and there was no occasion, as such, to the Registrar of the respondent-University to seek clarification from the State Government. 3. After having gone through the record of the case, this Court finds that pay of the petitioner was fixed in terms of decision of the Board of Management dated 27.4.1987 and there was no occasion, as such, to the Registrar of the respondent-University to seek clarification from the State Government. Otherwise also the petitioner is/was entitled to the benefit of FR-49 as he has worked against the higher post of Comptroller w.e.f. 15.10.1999 to 27.1.2000 and 13.11.2000 to 24.9.2001. 4. It is undisputed that petition’s pay was fixed in terms of Office Order dated 10.6.1999 (Annexure A-5), consequent upon his appointment and subsequent permanent absorption in the University services w.e.f. 1.8.1997 as Deputy Comptroller in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 (UGC). Moreover, perusal of communication dated 20.3.1989 (Annexure A-8) clearly suggests that Comptroller repeatedly reiterated that pay of petitioner has rightly been fixed, hence, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that once decision had been taken by the highest decision making body of the respondent i.e. Board of Management, the matter was not required to be sent for clarification because clarification, if any, was required to be sought in the cases where the respondent-University has not framed its own Statute/Instructions etc. 5. In the instant case, plain reading of Statute 7.27 clearly reveals that in those cases where conditions of service are/were not covered by the provisions of Statute, the conditions of service are/were required to be decided in accordance with the Rules laid down by the Himachal Pradesh Government for its own employees or in such other manner as the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of the Board or under the powers delegated to him by the Board may deem fit. In the instant case, the Board of Management took conscious decision vide notification dated 20.3.1989 to regulate the pay in old cases and future cases of the employees, who joined the University on deputation/Foreign Service, hence, learned Single Judge rightly concluded that it was not open to the Registrar to seek clarification from the State Government. Rather decision taken by the respondent-University on the basis of notification dated 20.3.1989 was to be made applicable in its letter and spirit. 6. Rather decision taken by the respondent-University on the basis of notification dated 20.3.1989 was to be made applicable in its letter and spirit. 6. Leaving everything aside, we find that there is no dispute that the petitioner had officiated on the higher post as Comptroller for two spells, i.e. 15.10.1999 to 27.1.2000 and 13.11.2000 to 24.9.2001 and as such, he has been rightly held entitled for the benefit under FR-49. Since the petitioner worked as Comptroller i.e. a higher post, benefit under FR 49 ought to have been granted to him by respondent-University. 7. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of rules occupying the field and as such the same is upheld. We have also been informed that the petitioner stands retired. Therefore, this appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly. 8. All interim orders are vacated and all the pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of.