ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. The pivotal controversy that arises in this batch of writ petition pertains to fixation of pay in the Department of School Education and applicability of F.R. 22-D of the Madhya Pradesh Fundamental Rules. Though the factual scope in different cases would be different issue of law that would govern the lis in each case being the same, the batch of cases was heard analogously and is disposed of by this common order. 2. To appreciate the real expose of facts, it is appropriate to adumbrate the factual scenario presented in W. P. No. 19237/2003. The petitioner was initially appointed in the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 24-8-1961 and posted at Primary School, Bara, District, Morena. He was allowed to have the benefit of time-bound scheme after completion of 12 years as per the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee with effect from 1-1-1986 vide order No. 1027, dated 5-2-1991. His name featured at Sr. No. 430 in the said order. He was given his first promotion on the post of Headmaster (PS) vide order No. Estt/41/95/96/33, dated 6-1-1996. His name found place at Sr. No. 56 in the said order. He joined duty on the post of Headmaster on 11-1-1996. Though the petitioner was promoted yet the authorities used the word 'posted'. The petitioner carried out the duties and responsibility of the higher post and discharged the duties with devotion and dedication. It is put forth that the petitioner was treated to be promoted by order dated 12-2-1999 as is reflected from the order dated 12-2-1999 passed by the Deputy Director, Education, Annexure-A/3. As he did not get benefit under FR 22-D he submitted a representation vide Annexure-A/4 but he was deprived of the said benefit by the respondents on the ground that he was not promoted but posted. It has been putforth that he was getting the pay-scale of Rs. 92-170 as an assistant teacher in the year 1961 and was allowed to have the benefit of time-bound scheme with effect from 1-1-1986. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Headmaster (PS) in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 with effect from 11-1-1996. It is grievance of the petitioner that on promotion to the Post Headmaster (PS) his pay ought to have been fixed keeping in view the pay-scale of the Assistant Teacher. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Headmaster (PS) in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 with effect from 11-1-1996. It is grievance of the petitioner that on promotion to the Post Headmaster (PS) his pay ought to have been fixed keeping in view the pay-scale of the Assistant Teacher. It is his further grievance that he has not been given the benefit of fixation of pay as per FR-22-D in the post of U.D.T. (MS). It is contended that the Finance Department issued an order No. 1023/437/98/C/TV, dated 25-5-1998, Annexure-A/7 stating, inter alia, that the benefit of fixation of pay of time-bound scheme would be given to the employees either under FR 22(a) (ii) or under FR-22-D whichever is more beneficial but in the case of the petitioner though FR 22-D would have been more beneficial his pay has been arbitrarily fixed under FR 22(a)(ii). A reference has been made to the feeder cadres and promotion cadres as contained in Annexure-A/8. The said document indicates that the post of assistant teacher (PS) is the feeder cadre of Headmaster (PS) and Headmaster (PS) is feeder cadre of UDT (PS). It is averred in the petition that in the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena v. State of M.P. and others (O.A. No. 224/1992) it has been held that whenever an employee is promoted to discharge the functions of a higher post with greater responsibility, even if the pay-scale of feeder cadre and promotional post is identical, the employee has to be paid the advantage of FR 22-D. The said order, as pleaded, was assailed in limine. There is also reference to the orders passed in the cases of Kaushal Kishore Pandey v. State of M.P. and others (O.A. No. 2540/1999) and U. R. Sharma v. State of M.P. (O.A. No. 2541/99) to bolster the stand. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed contending, inter alia, that the application is belated and not entertainable. It is further put forth that Smt. Kunti Saxena was promoted from the post of Headmaster (MS) to Lecturer but in the case at hand the applicant was promoted from assistant teacher to UDT as per Annexure-A/2 and, therefore, the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena cannot come in aid of the case of the petitioner. Emphasis has been laid on the terms 'posted' and 'identical payscale'. Emphasis has been laid on the terms 'posted' and 'identical payscale'. In essence, it is put forth that the case of the petitioner is not a case of promotion and, therefore, the law laid down in the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena (supra) does not arise. 4. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed stating, inter alia, that the annexure-A/8, the rules which mention with regard to the feeder cadre and promotional cadre categorically stipulates about the same and the petitioner is totally covered by the law laid down in the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena (supra) as the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster, vide Annexure-A/2 and a clarification was issued in that regard by the Deputy Director, Education, Bhind, dated 12-2-1999, Annexure-A/3. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in each case and Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the State in all the cases. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the cases that the controversy is covered by the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Kunti Saxena (supra) which stood affirmed by the Apex Court and hence, there is no rhyme or reason to deny the benefits to the likes of the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have laid immense emphasis on FR-22D(1) to show that the obtaining factual scenario gets squarely pigeon-holed by the said provision. 7. Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, per contra, submitted that after dismissal of the SLP matter arose again in the Tribunal in the case of Ram Kishore Singh Sikarwar v. State of M.P. and others (O.A. No. 588/1995). In the said case there is a difference of opinion between the Administrative Member and the Judicial Member and accordingly the matter was placed before the larger Bench of the Tribunal. While so submitting the learned counsel for the State very fairly stated that after the abolition of the Tribunal the said difference has paled into insignificance and it is for this Court to decide the case on its own merits. It is submitted by Mr. S. K. Yadav that FR 22-D(i) is not automatically attracted unless the posts carry higher duties and responsibilities and no employee can get dual advantage in the fixation of pay-scale. It is submitted by Mr. S. K. Yadav that FR 22-D(i) is not automatically attracted unless the posts carry higher duties and responsibilities and no employee can get dual advantage in the fixation of pay-scale. To bolster his submission he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Union of India and others v. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, (1998) 5 SCC 242 . 8. Before I discuss the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, it is appropriate to refer to the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under : There might have been several cases in which Head Mistress of Middle School have been promoted on the post of Lecturer of Higher Secondary School. The State could easily provide material to us to demonstrate the manner in which the pay-scale has been fixed. State has not filed any such data before us. We, therefore, confine our decision only on the basis of the plain language provided in proviso No. 4 to Fundamental Rule 22-D. This proviso only reads that the benefits of this rule shall not be given to a govt. servant when the higher post of the scale is identical with the scale of pay of the lower post but is distinguished by a special pay only. The state has not brought to our notice that any special pay was attached in the higher post. We, therefore, hold that this proviso which is relied upon by the State does not debar the applicant from getting the pay fixed as per 22-D(1). Accordingly we direct that the applicant is entitled to the benefits of FR 22-D and is entitled to get her pay fixed in accordance with FR 22-D(1). The applicant will be entitled to all benefits of fixation of pay, receiving the arrears, and of getting pension, gratuity and other benefits fixed accordingly. Benefits should be given within a period of six months from today. 9. The S.L.P. filed against the said order was dismissed. 10. The core question that falls for consideration is whether the aforesaid decision has been correctly decided. To appreciate the scenario in entirety it is appropriate to reproduce the FR 22-A(a)(ii). Benefits should be given within a period of six months from today. 9. The S.L.P. filed against the said order was dismissed. 10. The core question that falls for consideration is whether the aforesaid decision has been correctly decided. To appreciate the scenario in entirety it is appropriate to reproduce the FR 22-A(a)(ii). It reads as under : F.R. 22-A (a) x x x x (i) x x x x (ii) When appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time-scale which is equal to his substantive pay in respect of the old post, or if there is no such stage, the stage next below that pay, plus personal pay equal to the difference, and in either case have continue to draw that pay until such time as he would have received an increment in the time-scale of the old post, or for the period after which an increment is earned in the time-scale of the new post, whichever is less. But if the minimum pay of the time-scale of the new post is higher than his substantive pay in respect of the old post, he will draw that minimum as initial pay. 11. In this context I think it appropriate to refer to F.R. 22-D(i). It reads as under: F.R. 22-D(i): Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules where a Govt, servant holding a post in a substantive, temporary, or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to 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 notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post by one increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued. Provided that the provisions of this rule shall not apply where a Govt, servant holding a class I post in substantive, temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to a higher post which is also a Class I post Provided further that the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 3 shall not be applicable in any case where the initial pay is fixed under this rule. Provided also that where a Govt, servant is, immediately before promotion or appointment to higher post, drawing pay at the maximum of the time scale or one or more stages above the maximum of the time-scales in the form of stagnation allowance of the lower post, his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post by an amount equal to the last increment in the time-scale of the lower post. This amendment shall come into effect from the 17th June, 1974. Provided further that the provision of this rule shall not apply where a Govt, servant is promoted or appointed to a higher post in the scale of pay which is identical with the scale of pay of the lower post but is distinguished by an addition of a special pay only. In such cases the incumbents will get only the special pay in addition to their pay in the lower post. This rule has come into effect from 1st April, 1961. 12. Mr. Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the State has submitted when the pay-scales in both the cadres are same, benefit extended under FR 22-D(i) would not get attracted. To buttress his submission he has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Ashoke Kumar Banerjee (supra) wherein the respondent was drawing a particular pay-scale as Junior Engineer and on completion of 15 years of service as Junior Engineer he was given the benefit of FR 22(1)(a)(i) and the question posed was whether on promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer could he be entitled to the benefit of the same FR-22(1)(i). Their Lordships in para 7 referred to F.R. 22-(1)(a)(i) and eventually came to hold that if a person in the feeder category has already got the benefit of the FR on completion of 15 years and he is given a second benefit on the basis of the same FR, then he would be getting more than his seniors. To appreciate the scenario in entirety, it is appropriate to reproduce paras 8 and 9 : 8. To appreciate the scenario in entirety, it is appropriate to reproduce paras 8 and 9 : 8. In our view the respondent having received the same benefit in advance, while working as Junior Engineer and while not actually functioning as an Assistant Engineer, is not entitled to the same benefit of fresh fitment in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 when he is promoted on 1-8-1991 as Assistant Engineer. This is because as on 1-8-1991, he is not being fitted into the "time scale of the higher post" as stated in the FR. That situation was already over when the OM was applied to him on his completion of 15 years. For the applicability of the FR 22(1)(a)(i) it is not merely sufficient that the officer gets a promotion from one post to another involving duties and responsibilities but another condition must also be satisfied, namely, that he must be moving from a lower scale attached to the lower post to a higher scale attached to a higher post. If, as in this case, the benefit of the higher scale has already been given to him by virtue of the OM there is no possibility of applying this part of the FR which says. his initial pay in the time scale of higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or rupee twenty-five only, whichever is more. 9. Further, the respondent is a junior officer in the category of Junior Engineers and he has already got the benefit of the FR on completion of 15 years. If he is to be given a second benefit on the basis of same FR, then he would be getting more than his seniors, who might have got promoted earlier and might have got benefit of the FR 22(1)(a)(i) only once. Such an anomaly was not obviously intended by the FR. The aforesaid decision was decided in a different context and the FR 22(a)(i) which their Lordships were dealing with was couched in a different language. Here, this Court is concerned with the applicability of FR 22-D(i). It is altogether on a different canvass. The fourth proviso, as has been reproduced above, has a different connotation and covers a separate spectrum. The aforesaid decision was decided in a different context and the FR 22(a)(i) which their Lordships were dealing with was couched in a different language. Here, this Court is concerned with the applicability of FR 22-D(i). It is altogether on a different canvass. The fourth proviso, as has been reproduced above, has a different connotation and covers a separate spectrum. Thus, in my considered view, the law laid down in the case of Ashoke Kumar Banerjee (supra) is distinguishable. 13. Once it is held that the case of Ashoke Kumar Banerjee (supra) does not apply, what is to be seen is whether the Tribunal has correctly understood the import and impact of FR-22(D)(i) in the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena (supra). In the said case, the Tribunal has interpreted the fourth proviso. I am inclined to think that construction endowed on the said provision by the Tribunal is correct. 14. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered opinion, all the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of FR 22-(D)(i) as their cases are squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena (supra). The benefit computed within a period of three months and be extended to each of the petitioners. 15. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.