JUDGMENT

V.S.Sirpurkar, J. —

1. It it an admitted position that the respondent No. 1 who was a member of the state police service was inducted into the Indian Police Service (IPS in short) w.e.f. 9.12.1995. At that time, his basic pay in the state cadre was Rs. 4650 p.m. + special pay of Rs. 100. Very curiously, after his entry into the IPS., his pay came to be refixed at Rs. 4250 + special pay of Rs. 200 w.e.f. 1.12.1996.

2. Respondent No. 1 made a representation dated 16.8.1997 to the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of removal of the anomaly consisting in the reduction of pay in the IPC cadre vis-à-vis higher pay in the State Police Service. Instead of removing that anomaly, it was reiterated in a communication dated 2.9.1997 received from the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala that the fixation of pay was made placing reliance on Clauses (iii) & (iv) of Schedule II of IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPS (Pay) Rules”) and hence, there was no anomaly at all. Respondent No. 1 again sent a detailed representation dated 6.10.1997 wherein he had elaborately explained the facts and the relevant rules with regard to the pay fixation on his appointment to the IPS cadre on promotion from the State Police Service and the provisions regarding the power of relaxation conferred on the Union of India under Rule 6 of Section III of Schedule II of the IPS (Pay) Rules. However, that was also rejected by communication dated 4.1.1998. The respondent No.1, therefore, challenged the same by way of filing Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and sought the following reliefs:

1. Call for the records leading to Annexure A1 & A2 and set aside the same.

2. Issue a direction to the respondents to fix the basic pay of the applicant in the post of Superintendent of Police (IPS Cadre) at Rs. 4500/- + personal pay of Rs. 400/- with effect from 9.12.1995 and disburse the arrears of salary due to the applicant.

3. To declare that the applicant is entitled to have his pay fixed in the IPS cadre on the basis of the pay drawn by him in the non-IPS cadre is a confirmed Superintendent of Police applying the provisions contained in Section 1 of Schedule II of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules without giving effect to the unreasonable definition of higher scale of pay contained in Clause III of Schedule II of the said Rules.

4. To declare that the definition of Higher Scale of pay contained in Clause III of Schedule II of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules is unreasonable and unworkable and hence should not be enforced for fixation of the pay of the applicant in the IPS cadre with effect from 9.12.1995.

5. To declare that the definition of higher scale of pay contained in Clause (III) of Schedule II of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules is unconstitutional and ab initio void.

6. To call for the records leading to Annexure A-16 and letter NO. 20015/1/2000-AIS (II) dated 27.3.2000 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions referred to in Annexure A-16 and set aside the same.

3. It also became apparent that few other officers similarly placed with the respondent No. 1 were not found fit to be inducted into the IPC cadre along with the respondent No. 1 and they were inducted into the IPS Cadre subsequently. It was pointed out by the respondent No. 1 that those officers were also junior to him. They were Shri Somasundra Menon, Shamsudeen, Vijayan. Yet, inspite of the fact that all these officers were junior and inducted into the IPS Cadre after the induction of respondent No.1, their pay were fixed at higher level than that of respondent No. 1.

4. The Tribunal had held that the pay of respondent No. 1 could not be reduced from Rs. 4650 to Rs. 4250/- particularly because of the Rules governing the pay scales of such State Cadre Police Officers who were inducted into the IPS Cadre. For that purpose, the Tribunal took stock o