JUDGMENT MOHAN, J.- Leave granted. 2. The appellant K. Gopinathan was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He was taken on deputation in the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) on February 1, 1965. On such deputation he was paid his pay pertaining to the post of his parent office, as modified from time to time. Besides, he was also paid deputation duty allowance. On February 1, 1983, he was permanently absorbed and his pay was re-fixed. 3. It requires to be stated at this stage that on such absorption his basic pay was reduced from Rs 510 to Rs 390. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. pointing out the loss caused to him by an incorrect fixation. In this regard he made repeated representations and ultimately on September 13, 1990 the appellant was informed that his pay fixation had been correctly done. 4. Aggrieved by that order, he moved Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by way of Original Application No. 967 of 1990. Before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the basic pay on account of the absorption should not be reduced. Therefore, merely because the overall pay is more, that does not mean there could be a reduction of the basic pay. He relied on the decision of the Bangalore and the New Delhi Tribunals for advancing this plea. However, the Tribunal rejected the same. Hence, Mr M.N. Krishnamani, learned counsel for the appellant commends the acceptance of the view of the Bangalore Bench as well as the Delhi Bench which found favour with this Court in SLP (C) No. 2196 of 1992 while the respondents would submit that the reasoning in the impugned judgment is correct. 5. By means of the following tabulated statement we will point out the position of the appellants pay as a deputationist and as absorbee in C.B.I. As a deputationist on the date of absorption As an absorbee in CBI Basic Pay Rs 510 Rs 390 Spl. Pay Rs 30 Rs 30 Deputation Rs 80 - allowance Personal Pay - Rs 85 Dearness Pay - Rs 214.70 DA/ADA Rs 279 Rs 304 Total: Rs 899 Rs 1023.70 6. Two things are striking: (i) His basic pay has been reduced from Rs 510 to Rs 390. Pay Rs 30 Rs 30 Deputation Rs 80 - allowance Personal Pay - Rs 85 Dearness Pay - Rs 214.70 DA/ADA Rs 279 Rs 304 Total: Rs 899 Rs 1023.70 6. Two things are striking: (i) His basic pay has been reduced from Rs 510 to Rs 390. (ii) However the overall pay as a deputationist on the date of absorption was Rs 899 while after absorption in C.B.I. it is Rs 1023.70. 7. On these facts the Tribunal comes to the conclusion as follows: (ATC p. 581, para 4) "In fact on the date of absorption, the dearness allowance available under the Tamil Nadu Government Pay Scales was only Rs 279 for the applicant, whereas the amount of DA available to him under the Central scales was Rs 518. It is also to be noted that out of Rs 518, an amount of Rs 214.70 has been merged with the pay. When the dearness pay of Rs 214.70 is added to the basic pay of Rs 390.00, we get the amount of Rs 604, which is higher than the basic pay of Government servant under the Tamil Nadu Government, attached to the post. We therefore hold that there has not been any reduction in the applicants basic pay in substance, even though that basic pay consisted of two elements is different. Taking into account the fact that the Tamil Nadu Government scales were revised on April 1, 1978 and that of the Central Government on January 1, 1973, we are of the view that both the scales are not comparable. When a person is being governed by the Tamil Nadu Government pay scales while he was on deputation, and therefore as on February 1, 1983, is absorbed under Central scale of pay the diminution in basic pay of the applicant is bound to occur. We also notice that even though the basic pay of the applicant rose to Rs 604 from Rs 510 by virtue of the addition of the dearness pay of Rs 214.70 with the existing basic pay of Rs 390.00. Therefore, this is a case in which there has not been any real reduction in the basic pay of the applicant." 8. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to this reasoning. Therefore, this is a case in which there has not been any real reduction in the basic pay of the applicant." 8. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to this reasoning. While upholding the view of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 1680 of 1989 in SLP (C) No. 2196 of 1992, we have pointed out how the basic pay cannot be reduced. The same principle will be applicable to this case as well. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. For Citation : (1992) 4 SCC 701