JUDGMENT 1. :- The substantial questions of law that involve in this second appeal are as under : 1. Whether the defendant-respondents have power to reduce the pay of the petitioner-appellant by promotion/transfer to other post and grade from his previous post and grade under the law? 2. Whether the defendants-respondents have power under the law to fix the pay of junior above the pay of the petitioner-appellant? 3. Whether the appellate court has misconceived the facts and statutory interpretation/construction and gave its decision against the well established principles of law ? 2. These questions arise in the circumstances set out below:- (i) The plaintiff-appellant (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit in the trial court stating therein that the plaintiff was a Guard in Western Railway. He was initially recruited as Trains Clerk on 7.10.1955 originally in the scale of Rs. 56-130 which was revised to Rs. 110-180. The plaintiff officiated for a period the details of which was given in the plaint. Thereafter the plaintiff was promoted as Incharge Trains Clerk/ Dy. Yard Master in the scale of 150-240 from December 6, 1960 and continued as such till 24th March, 1963. During the aforesaid period the plaintiff drew yearly grade increments in the scale of Rs. 150-240. The recruitment to the post of Guard in the scale of Rs. 130-225 was also made from amongst the candidates serving in the department. They were also taken from various categories including Trains Clerk in the scale of 110-130. The plaintiff was thereafter sent for Guards training in 1962 and he was promoted as Guard by the order dated Jan. 25, 1963 and he was working in the scale of 150-240 and getting Rs. 160 as basic pay. On promotion as Guard, the basic salary of the plaintiff was fixed as Rs. 138/- per month. Therefore the plaintiff averred in the plaint that it amounted to reduction in salary and the said order was discriminatory vis-a-vis Mr. Malik, who was junior to the plaintiff. (ii) The defendant respondents (in short the defendant) contested the suit inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff did not officiate as Incharge Trains Clerk continuously for three years therefore he was not entitled to protection of his pay. Other legal objections were also raised by the defendant. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed following issues: 1. Other legal objections were also raised by the defendant. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was wrongly fixed at 138/- per month at the time of promotion to the post of Guards Grade C and this amounts to reduce the pay from 160/- to 138/-. 2. Whether the present suit is within limitation ? 3. Whether the present suit of plaintiff for only declaration is not maintainable without consequential relief. 4. Relief. (iii) The learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated October 10, 1979 decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff was getting Rs. 160 per month on March 25, 1963 as basic pay which was to be protected and the plaintiff was also entitled to consequential relief. (iv) The defendant preferred civil regular first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , against the judgment and decree dated October 10, 1979 passed by the learned trial court. The learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated September 30, 1981 accepted the appeal and reversed the finding of the learned trial court. The judgment and decree of the learned appellate court has been assailed in this second appeal by the plaintiff. 3. Mr. K.S. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant raised a preliminary objection that in view of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act 1985, this appeal should be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the provisions contained in Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short the Act). A look at the proviso to section 29 of the Act may be made which provides that "Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before a High Court." 5. In view of the proviso appended with the section 29 of the Act, I am of the view that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant is devoid of any force and this court is competent to dispose the instant second appeal. 6. Mr. R.D. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended that the learned appellate court did not deal with the Ex.11 which dearly provides step up of pay of senior equal to junior if junior promoted after 1.4.1961 gets more pay than his senior. Mr. 6. Mr. R.D. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended that the learned appellate court did not deal with the Ex.11 which dearly provides step up of pay of senior equal to junior if junior promoted after 1.4.1961 gets more pay than his senior. Mr. R.P. Malik was junior to the plaintiff was promoted as Guard "C" on 13.7.65 i.e. after April 1, 1961 and therefore the plaintiff was entitled for stepping up of his pay equal to Mr. Malik. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that substantive pay is a kind of property and right of substantive pay cannot be taken away without following the procedure prescribed by law. Reliance was placed on 1992 (3) WLC (Raj.) 595. Mr. Tripathi, further contended that no opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff and therefore vested right of the plaintiff was infringed. He placed reliance on Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway Dinapur and other vs. L.N. Kashri and others ( AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1889 ). 7. On the other hand, Mr. K.S. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the defendant supported the judgment passed by the learned appellate court. 8. In Gopal Ram and others vs. Union of India (1992(3) WLC (Raj.) 595 (supra) this court propounded that once a person has been appointed to a post which carries a particular pay scale, he acquires a legal right to get salary in that pay scale. Salary and arrears of pay would constitute property whereof one can be deprived only in accordance with procedure established by law under Article 300-A of the Constitution. 9. In Divisional Supdt. E. Rly vs. L.N. Kashri (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that if the pay scale is fixed and the employee is confirmed, reduction of scale without hearing him is illegal. 10. In this case also the basic pay of the plaintiff was reduced but he was not afforded hearing and I am of the considered view that the legal right acquired by the plaintiff to get salary being in a particular pay scale, cannot be taken away without following the procedure prescribed under Article 300-A of the Constitution. 11. The learned appellate court did not properly appreciate these legal questions and committed illegality in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 11. The learned appellate court did not properly appreciate these legal questions and committed illegality in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. Thus I hold that defendants have no power to reduce the pay of the plaintiff by promotion/reversion to other post and grade from his previous post and grade under the law without following the procedure prescribed under Article 300-A of the Constitution. The defendants have no power to fix the pay of a junior above the pay of the plaintiff. The learned appellate court has misconceived the facts and statutory interpretation/construction and gave its decision against well established principles of law. 12. In the result, I allow this second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated September 30, 1981 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5 Jaipur City, Jaipur, while upholding the judgment and decree of the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Jaipur City dated October 10, 1979 with costs.Appeal allowed with costs. *******