( 1 ) THIS writ appeal has been directed against the order of the learned single judge dismissing W. P. No. 3490/75 filed by the appellant. ( 2 ) K. B. Rama Rao, the appellant herein, was working as a Ranger, Grade- ii in the pay scale of Rs. 130-250. He reached the maximum of Rs. 250/- in that scale on January 1,1965. He was regularly promoted to the cadie of ranger, Grade-I by order dated April 5, 1967 in the pay scale of Rs. 250-350. He sought fixation of his pay at Rs. 270/- with effect from the date of his promotion under Rule 42-B (1) of the Karnataka civil Services Rules. The Divisional forest Officer acceded to his request, but the Chief Conservator of Forests did not agree with the decision of the divisional Forest Officer. He was of the opinion that promotion from Grade-II to Grade-I did not involve the assumption of a higher responsibility and, therefore, Rama Rao was not entitled to the benefit of Rule 42-B (1 ). The government also appears to have concurred with the view of the Chief Conservator of Forests. Rama Rao, therefore, moved this Court for appropriate relief under article 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge, before whom the writ petition came up for final disposal, did not agree with the contention urged for Rama Rao and dismissed the writ petition on the sole ground that Rama Rao has not placed before the Court material to show that the post of Ranger, Grade-I carries greater responsibilities than the post of ranger. Grade-I. The learned Judge was of the opinion that promotion from grade-I to Grade-I by itself is not sufficient to claim the benefit of Rule 42-8 (1 ). ( 4 ) WITH respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge. Grade-I. The learned Judge was of the opinion that promotion from grade-I to Grade-I by itself is not sufficient to claim the benefit of Rule 42-8 (1 ). ( 4 ) WITH respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge. Rule 42-B (1) provides: notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, when a government servant is promoted to a post or appointed to an ex-cadre post and such promotion or appointment involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those of the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay in the time scale of the lower post at the time of such fixation : it cannot be disputed that the benefit of this rule shall be extended if the person claiming it is regularly promoted to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him. The temporary or officiating promotion, however, may be different. In the hierarchy of posts, the promotional post always carries greater responsibilities and duties too. If both the lower and promotional cadres carry the same duties and responsibilities, there is no necessity to constitute a promotional cadre and also to give a higher scale of pay. It is always implied that an officer at the higher rank should carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post in the lower cadre. That is the system in our civil service. The persons in the higher cadre must take greater responsibilities than those of their subordinates and properly guide their subordinates. Otherwise, the civil service would be a force. It is, therefore, sufficient, in our opinion, that the promotion in the instant case to a higher cadre itself is sufficient to attract the benefit of Rule 42-B (1) of the Karnataka civil Services Rules. In the result, we allow the writ appeal and in reversal of the order of the learned single Judge, we direct respondent-1 to fix the pay of the appellant under Rule 42-8 (1) of the Karnataka civil Services Rules with all consequential benefits. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .