ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard petitioner in person as well as learned Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh. 3. The appellant was a member of the Indian Administrative Service and was assigned the Madhya Pradesh cadre. While he was working as Principal Secretary to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh he was prematurely retired by issuing a three months notice dated 27-9-1975. In pursuance of the said notice he was retired on 2-1-1976. He submitted a representation against his premature retirement and by order dated 2-1-1978 the said order of compulsory retirement was cancelled by the State Government. Thereafter on 17-1-1978 the State Government issued an order appointing the appellant to the ex-cadre post of Financial Commissioner from 24-1-1978 to 28-2-1980 and for the period from 28-2-1980 to 30-7-1982 he served as Officer on Special Duty. He was again posted as Financial Commissioner on 31-7-1982 and he held the said post till he attained the age of superannuation on 31-12-1982. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein he prayed that the ex-cadre post of Financial Commissioner held by him be declared equivalent to the cadre post of Chief Secretary. The said writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in 1985. The Tribunal disposed of the said petition by order dated 5-1-1989 whereby the State Government was directed to consider granting to the appellant the relief prayed for. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of the Tribunal was allowed by this Court by order dated 27-9-1989 directing the Tribunal to decide the question of equivalence to the post of Financial Commissioner to that of the Chief Secretary. Thereafter the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 26-4-1991 whereby the ex-cadre post of Financial Commissioner has been equated to the post of Chief Secretary and it was ordered that the appellant be paid the difference in pay and allowances between the post of Financial Commissioner and Chief Secretary during the period from 24-1-1978 to 28-2-1980 and 31-7-1982 to 31-12-1982. The, said amount has been paid to the appellant. Only surviving grievance of the appellant is with regard to the period from 28-2-1980 to 30-7-1982 when he was holding the post of Officer on Special Duty. The, said amount has been paid to the appellant. Only surviving grievance of the appellant is with regard to the period from 28-2-1980 to 30-7-1982 when he was holding the post of Officer on Special Duty. The submission of the appellant is that the said post of Officer on Special Duty should be treated at the same level as that of the Financial Commissioner which was held by the appellant prior to 28-2-1980 and subsequent to 30-7-1982. 4. The Tribunal has not specifically considered this question. We would have considered remitting the matter to the Tribunal for considering this question but since the matter is to be decided on the basis of undisputed facts, we consider it appropriate to deal with the said question ourselves. 5. It is not disputed that the appellant was holding the post of Financial Commissioner from 24-1-1978 to 28-2-1980 and again from 31-7-1982 to 31-12-1982. The post of Officer on Special Duty which was held by the appellant from 28-2-1980 to 30-7-1982 cannot be regarded as a post lower to that of Financial Commissioner held by the appellant because if it is so held it would amount to downgrading him which could only be done in accordance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution, it is not the case of the respondents that for he posting as officer on special Duty the appellant was reduced in rank. The post of officer on special Duty which was held by the appellant treated by the Tribunal as equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary the appellant is entitled to the pay and allowances of the post of Chief Secretary for the period 28-2-1980 to 30-7-l 982. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay to the appellant the difference in the pay and allowances between the post of Officer on Special Duty and of the Chief Secretary for the period 28-2-1980 to 30-7-1982. The said amount should be paid to him within a period of two months. The appellant will be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs 5000. For Citation: (1995) Supp(3) SCC 618