Antony Dominic, J.

1. The short question raised before us in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in upholding the claim of respondents 1 and 2 that they are entitled to the first time bound higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.2060-3200/-, applicable to the post of Chief Photographer in the Photographic Bureau of Police Department.

2. Facts of the case are that respondents 1 and 2 were Police Photographers, who had entered service on 12.8.1995 and 19.8.1995 respectively. In Ext.P1 Pay Revision Order, the first higher grade was sanctioned to Government employees on completion of 10 years of service in the entry post. However, in Ext.P2 order it was also provided thus:

"(vii) If there is a promotion post in respect of the categories of posts (entry) coming under pay range from Rs.775-1065 to 1640-2900 and its scale of pay is higher than the time bound grade proposed above, then the qualified incumbent will be given the scale of pay of the promotion post in the direct line of promotion as time bound higher grade. While assigning higher grades, only qualified hands i.e. those possessing the qualifications prescribed for the promotion post, will get the scales of pay of regular promotion posts. Unqualified hands will be allowed the next higher scale of pay above that of the scale of pay of the post held at that time, in the standard scales of pay."

3. According to the respondents, promotions were being effected from among photographers to the post of Chief Photographer and they have produced Exts.P13, P14 and P15 orders to substantiate this contention. They, therefore, contended that, in view of clause (vii) of the Pay Revision Order referred to above, they are eligible for the scale of pay to the higher post of Chief Photographer. Although the appellants contended that the post of Chief Photographer is not a promotion post for photographers, and that appointments are made 'by-transfer' rendering respondents 1 and 2 ineligible for the benefit claimed, in the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that this is a fit case for considering the post of Chief Photographer as a promotion post for photographers for the purpose of grant of higher grade. On that basis, the learned Judge directed that respondents be granted the scale of pay to the post of Chief photographer. This judgment is under challenge before us.

4. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents.

5. According to the learned Government Pleader, clause (vii) of the Pay Revision Order relied on by the respondents, is applicable only in the case of a promotion post in the direct line of promotion. He contended that going by the Special Rules in respect of the post of Chief Photographer in the Police Department 1992, the method of appointment to the post of Chief Photographer is "by-transfer" from the category of photographers in the Photographic Bureau of the Police Department. On this basis, he contended that since the Chief Photographer's post is not a promotion post, Photographers are not eligible to claim fixation in the scale of pay prescribed for the post of Chief Photographer, relying on clause (vii) extracted above.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 referred to the provisions of the General Rules of KS & SSR and contended that in the rules the words 'promotion' and 'transfer' are used interchangeably and that the appellants themselves have treated the post of Chief Photographer as a promotion post to photographers. Counsel referred us to Exts.P13, 14 and 15 in this context. On this basis, he contended that in effect and substance Chief Photographer is a promotion post and that therefore the respondents were justified in claiming the benefit of clause (vii) of the Pay Revision Order.

7. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar. We have already referred to clause (vii) of Pay Revision Order, wh