S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 11th June, 1993 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in Civil Order No. 14597 (W)/92 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the petitioner was allowed. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated the fact of the matter is as follows: ( 3 ) THERE existed two institutes known as Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute and Chittaranjan Cancer Hospital. The institute was formed by the Prime Minister of India, Health Minister of Government of West Bengal and other high officials as would appear from the Memorandum of Association thereof. The said Society was registered under the Society Registration Act. The aforementioned Chittaranjan Cancer Hospital was amalgamated with the Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) with the objects mentioned in the Memorandum of Association. ( 4 ) THE writ petitioner-1st respondent was a Ward Master working in the Chittaranjan Cancer Hospital. He was on a scale of pay of Rs. 1390/- to 2970/ -. He exercised his option under the ROPA Rules, 1990 which came into force with effect from 1. 4. 1986. On or about 20. 10. 90 the Governing Body of the Institute finalised the absorption terms of the medical, para-medical and administrative staff of CNCI. The petitioner submitted an option form opting in the scale of pay attached to the post as per Government of India Rules. As there existed certain anomalies in the earlier option, he submitted a fresh option on 9. 4. 91. A circular letter was issued relating to absorption of all categories of employees of Chittaranjan Cancer Hospital and about submission of option form. The Director of the Institute accepted the petitioner's option pursuant whereto allegedly his scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 1200/- to 2040/- with initial pay at Rs. 1700/- and Rs. 5/- as his personal pay. The petitioner in the writ application has questioned the said order. Before the learned trial Judge the appellants herein despite discretion did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. ( 5 ) THE only question, therefore, arises for consideration is as to where upon merger of both the aforementioned Institute the pay of the petitioner could be reduced. ( 6 ) IT appears that Service Regulations were framed in respect of the Institute, clause 10 whereof reads thus :-"10. ( 5 ) THE only question, therefore, arises for consideration is as to where upon merger of both the aforementioned Institute the pay of the petitioner could be reduced. ( 6 ) IT appears that Service Regulations were framed in respect of the Institute, clause 10 whereof reads thus :-"10. Other conditions of Service : In respect of matter not provided in Institute's Bye-laws the rules as applicable to Central Government servants regarding general conditions of service, pay and allowances, T. A. and Daily Allowances, Foreign Services, L. T. C. , terms of deputation in India and abroad, joining time, etc, and orders and decisions issued in this regard by the Central Government from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Institute. " ( 7 ) IT is, clear that option was asked for and exercised by the employees only pursuant to or in furtherance of the said Regulation. ( 8 ) MR. Ashoke Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia, submitted that the Institute had a right to fix the scale of pay of its employees. According to the learned counsel the petitioner was granted the scale of pay of Rs. 3,700/- to 5,000/- during pending of the appeal only at the threat of contempt without prejudice of the appellants' rights and contentions of this appeal. The learned counsel relying on or on the basis of the decision of the apex Court in Secretary, Finance Department and Ors. v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 1203 , State of U. P. v. J. P. Chaurasia reported in AIR 1989 SC 19, State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Deb Kumar Mukherjee reported in 1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 640, Union of India and Anr. v. P. V. Hariharan and Anr. reported in 1997 (3) SCC 568 and Union of India v. Makhan Chandra Roy reported in AIR 1997 SC 2391 submits that the determination of the pay scale is primary function of the executive and is normally left to the decision of the expert body. The learned counsel submits that the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 on the basis whereof the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned judgement is not applicable in view of Rule 2 (ii) (d) thereof. The learned counsel submits that the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 on the basis whereof the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned judgement is not applicable in view of Rule 2 (ii) (d) thereof. The learned counsel contends that as the rule had been framed which includes the pay rules of CNCI the same is binding on all the employees. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has not suffered any pecuniary loss by reason of his fixation of pay by the Institute. In any event, while granting the said pay scale, he cannot be equated with the specialized Grade-II as he does not fulfil the educational qualification thereof. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the petitioner has already superannuated on 31. 1. 98. Mr. Dey would urge that as per the resolution, the Governing Body of the Institute not only framed the service regulation but also pay rules and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is bound thereby. ( 9 ) MR. Pal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent on the other hand, submits that although the Institute itself fixed the scale of pay of the petitioner at Rs. 1,390 to 2,970 with effect from 1. 4. 1986 for opting to be absorbed as employee of the Institute, it cannot whimsically or arbitrarily revise the same. It is submitted that the appellant has not been able to show its jurisdiction produce any document by as a result whereof the pay of the writ petitioner could be reduced. ( 10 ) IN this case the petitioner had opted to be absorbed in the services of the institute. Furthermore when option was asked for, the petitioner opted in the following terms:-" I opt for the scale of pay attached to the post as per pay of Government of India according to Rules of CNCI, Calcutta. "the resolution of the Governing Body reads thus:-A)ex-MANAGEMENT Visiting Physicians on Fixed honorarium. These Ex-management Physicians are part time visiting doctors at fixed honorarium of Rs. 100/- per month and also doing private practice. It was decided that they cannot be absorbed in the regular Central Government pay scales and they will continue on the existing basis. However, honorarium may be enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/- per month w. e. f. 1. 10. 1990. 100/- per month and also doing private practice. It was decided that they cannot be absorbed in the regular Central Government pay scales and they will continue on the existing basis. However, honorarium may be enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/- per month w. e. f. 1. 10. 1990. b)officers of Government of West Bengal Services and Group C and D staff of Government of West Bengal placed at CCH.- The existing officers and staff of Government of West Bengal working in CCH will be given option either to come over to Government of India pay scales or to retain Government of West Bengal pay scales. In case they opt for Central Government pay scales, the pay fixation will not be on point to point basis, but the basic pay drawn by them in the revised pay scale of West Bengal Government will be fixed in Central Govt. scale at the same stage if it exists or in the next lower stage plus personal pay. West Bengal Government Medical Officers may also be offered absorption terms subject to Government of West Bengal approval. However, no option is to be given to House Surgeons. Those who do not opt for Central Government pay scales, may retain West Bengal Government pay scales and other benefits of West Bengal Government They will, however, be eligible for promotion etc. along with other staff and they will be fully under the control of Director, CNCI, Calcutta and their service conditions will be as per Rules of CNCI, Calcutta. The seniority of the staff will be fixed with reference to their service in comparable pay scales. " ( 11 ) THE submission of Mr. Dey to the effect that the words used 'government of India pay scale or Central Government Pay Scale' as mentioned in the resolution of Governing Body necessarily means the pay scale fixed by CNCI and approved by the Central Government, cannot be accepted. The resolution of the Governing Body has to be given its full effect. It in no uncertain terms had used certain language and as the language is clear and unambiguous it is difficult to accept that the Central Government pay Rules would not mean the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986. The resolution of the Governing Body has to be given its full effect. It in no uncertain terms had used certain language and as the language is clear and unambiguous it is difficult to accept that the Central Government pay Rules would not mean the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986. ( 12 ) IT is beyond any cavil of doubt that such rules were in existence and, thus, it is idle to contend that the Governing Body meant something else than what was stated in its resolution. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the pay rules framed by the Institute is a part of its byelaws or part of its Regulations. The Regulations framed by it do not show that pay rules are part thereof. It is evident that till 20th October, 1990 no pay rule was framed as otherwise the question of referring to the Central Government Pay Rules would not have been arisen. If such pay rules were in existence, the Governing Body could have only referred to as the pay rules by it, in which event it was not necessary for it to refer the Central Government Pay Rules. ( 13 ) RULE 25 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 reads thus:-"all posts carrying present (a) 1200-50-1300-60- 3000-100-3500-scales specified in column 1900 125-5000 (3) (b) 1200-50-1300-60-1600-EB-60-1900-100-2000 (c) 1200-100-2000 (d) 1300-50-1700. ( 14 ) EVEN before this court no application has been filed for adduction of any additional evidence. Despite the same, we in the interest of justice allowed Mr. Dey to place the regulations. In absence of such application, the court could not have looked into any other document. Keeping in view the fact that two options were filed by the petitioner, one for absorption and another for being guided by a particular pay rules, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent now to contend that it had framed its own pay rules. For the views we have taken it is not necessary to deal with the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant as the ratio enunciated therein is neither in doubt nor in dispute. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. D. B. Dutta, J.-I agree appeal dismissed .