DATAR, J. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner who is an allottee from the former State of Madras in the cadre of Forest Rangers which is equated to the category of Ranger Grade ii was on promotion as Ranger Grade I entitled to the pay scale of the assistant Conservator of Forests. ( 2 ) PETITIONER joined service as Ranger in the former State of madras on the 18th of July 1949. The next promotional post in the former State of Madras was that of the Assistant Conservator of Forests. The scale of pay of Assistant Conservators was Rs, 300 to 700. Consequent upon the reorganisation of States, the post held by the petitioner, namely, Rangers in the former State of Madras was equated as Ranger Grade II. For the new State of Mysore, the Governor under the proviso to Art. 309 of the constitution of India, framed Rules what are known as "mysore Forest service Rules" and the cadre of Rangers is divided into two grades; one was Ranger Grade I, the other was Ranger Grade II. As the post held by the petitioner was equated with that of Ranger Grade II, the petitioner was promoted as Ranger Grade I and asked to take the scale of pay of rs. 250-10-290-15-350. The case of the petitioner is that he has been in the service of the Madras State as Ranger for a period of 7 years and when he was promoted to the next higher category from 15-7-62, he was entitled to the protection of the pay on promotion and hence entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 300-700- The claim made by the petitioner was rejected and hence he has filed the present writ petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the scale of pay in the stage next above his substantive pay viz. , Rs. 340 in the scale of Rs. 300-40/2- 500-50/2-700 with effect from 15-7-1967. , Rs. 340 in the scale of Rs. 300-40/2- 500-50/2-700 with effect from 15-7-1967. ( 3 ) ONE behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed and the contention raised in the counter affidavit is that in order to qualify to secure the protection of the pay scale of the parent State it should be shown that the petitioner was promoted to a higher post in the new State of Mysore which was equivalent to the post in his parent State to which he would have been promoted but for the reorganisation of States. It is also stated that the petitioner has to show that the duties and responsibllties of the higher post in the new State of Mysore are the same as the duties and responsibilities of the post to which he would have been promoted in the parent State. It is also stated that merely on the ground that promotion is effected in the new State of Mysore the higher scale of pay attached to a post in the parent State are not made available to him. It was therefore stated that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 300-700 on promotion as I Grade Ranger or Range Forest Officer, ( 4 ) A direction given by the Government of India under S. 117 of the states Reorganisation Act is binding on the State Governments. For the purpose of finding out the nature of the right which is protected, it would be necessary to refer in the first instance to the direction itself. In the communication sent to the State Governments in May 1957, in paragraph 5 of the letter this is what has been stated :"the Government of India have given very careful thought to this question in the light of the views expressed by the representatives at the two conferences mentioned earlier. In the communication sent to the State Governments in May 1957, in paragraph 5 of the letter this is what has been stated :"the Government of India have given very careful thought to this question in the light of the views expressed by the representatives at the two conferences mentioned earlier. They have come to the conclusion that it would be equitable to allow every person affected by reorganisation, the limited protection of drawing pay on promomotion to a post one stage above the one held by him in a substantive capacity or on which he had officiated continuously for a minimum period of three years immediately before the date of reorganisation, on the scale of pay that would have been admissible to him on such promotion in his parent State before reorganisation, if such scale is more favourable than the scale attached to the post in the new or reorganised State to which he is allotted. "the Central Government has thereafter stated the reasons as to why this condition of service was protected. It is,necessary to see what is the conclusion which has been arrived at by the Government of India. The limited protection which is granted to an employee is the protection of pay on promotion to a post one stage above the one held by him in a substantve capacity or on which he had officiated continuously for a minimum period of three years immediately before the reorganisation, on the scale of pay that would have been admssible to him on such promotion if such scale ia more favourable to the employee. Two things are therefore required to be established. One is that the allottee must be promoted in the new State and the second is that he must have been promoted from a post which had been held by the official in a substantive capacity or for a minimum period of three years. If these two things are satisfied, then, on promotion in the new State, if the scale of pay in the parent State is advantageous, then the official should be given that scale of pay. If these two things are satisfied, then, on promotion in the new State, if the scale of pay in the parent State is advantageous, then the official should be given that scale of pay. If the present case is tested in the light of the principles laid down by the Government of India, it will be noticed that the petitioner was holding that post for a period of seven years and he has been promoted in the new State of Mysore, and therefore, he will be entitled to the benefit of the pay scale of the promotional post available in the former State of Madras. In our view, it is not necessary for the official to establish the equivalence of the post and show that the post to which he is promoted is also of a category equivalent to the one regarding which he is claiming the benefit of the protection of pay scales. ( 5 ) THIS Court in the case of N. A. Kulkarni v. State of Mysore, 1 LR. 93. granted the benefit of the scale of pay on promotion and when that matter was taken up before the Supreme Court in the case reported in State of mysore v. N. A, Kulkarni, 1969 1 SCWR 509. this is what has been laid down : " 2. The Mysore Government declined to him the scale of rs. 270-360 and consulted the Bombay Government. The Bombay government replied that no rules had been framed and the Mysore government therefore decided that since the post of Sericulturist in bombay was not a promotional post, but a direct recruitment selection post filled up by open advertisement, Kulkarni was not entitled to the first stage protection on promotion. The directive to which we have referred gives two directions; the second direction is not applicable here, but the first underlined by us is. That directon is that every allottee would be allowed the limited protection to drawing pay on promotion to a post one stage above the one held by him in substantive capacity. In other words, every person allotted to the new State would not only be entitled to carry his own salary into the new State, but would be entitled to next stage of the Bombay pay and scale on promotion. It was admitted in the High Court that the next stage is rs. 270-360. In other words, every person allotted to the new State would not only be entitled to carry his own salary into the new State, but would be entitled to next stage of the Bombay pay and scale on promotion. It was admitted in the High Court that the next stage is rs. 270-360. Therefore, under this direction, Kulkarni was entitled to get this scale. The order of the High Court is therefore correct. " after referring to the directions to which we have already made reference, the clear principle that has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is that every allottee would be entitled to have the limited protection of drawing pay on promotion to a post one stage above the one held by him in substantive capacity and every allottee would not only be entitled to carry his own salary into the new State of Mysore but would be entitled to the next stage of the promotion. It would be necessary to note that the conditions which the State Government is seeking to impose have not been laid down in the directions of the Government of india or in the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. ( 6 ) IN our view, it would not be possible to put such a restriction and impair the limited protection given to the official. If this condition which is stated in the counter affidavit is accepted, then the limited protection of pay on promoion could never be granted to a person like the present petitioner. When petitioner is promoted on second occasion as Assistant conservator of Forests he will not be entitled to the benefit of the Government of India protection, as that will be a second promotion; with the result that if in the new State of Mysore there are intermediary posts created as is done in several cases, all such employees will be denied benefit of the protection of the pay on promotion. In our view, as clearly stated by the Government of India in their letter granting protection, since a large number of officials were transferred without their consent to another State, normally some amount of protection has to be granted to the officials. The protection granted to the officials is of getting on promotion in the new. State the pay on promotion which ho would have got in the parent State. The protection granted to the officials is of getting on promotion in the new. State the pay on promotion which ho would have got in the parent State. ( 7 ) IN our view, the decision of this Court in Quazi Mir Shariyat Ali v State of Musore, (1970) 1 Mys. L. J. 407. which was given pror to the decision of the Supreme court in State of Miisore v. N. A. Kulkami (2) is not In consonance with the Supreme Court decision. It is necessary to note that the benefit of the pay on promotion is granted on satisfying certain condition; it is a protection granted to him as ho is being transferred to another State without consent. In view of the clear enunciation cf law by the Supreme Court, we have not considered it necessary to refer this case to a large Bench. ( 8 ) IN our view, as the direction of the Government of India is clear and specific and the only two conditions imposed are promotion in new state of Mvsore and promotion from a post which has been held for particular number of vears, it is not open to the State Govenment to impose additional conditions and the requirement of the equivalence of the promotional post is a condition which in our view is not required to be satisfied for getting the benefit of the pay on promotion. ( 9 ) AS in the present case the petitioner has been promoted from the category of II Grade Banker to I Grade Ranger and as the petitioner held that post of the II Grade Ranger for a period of over seven years before promotion in the new State of Mysore, petitioner is entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 300-700 which was the scale of pay for the post of Assistant 'conservator of Forests. In that view, we allow this writ petition, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to grant the scale of pay of the petitioner in the stage next above his substantive pay viz. , Rs. 340 in the scale of Rs. 300-40/2-500-50/2-700 with effect from 15-7-1962. Petitioner is also entitled to his costs, Advocate's fee Rs. 100. 00. --- *** --- .