JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved with the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 28.1.2004 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award made by Labour Court dated 13.12.2001 and published vide notification dated 17.7.2002 and annexed on the notice Board of the court on 2.8.02. 2. The facts leading to the appeal are that in respect of workmen of appellant,who were originally on muster roll and were made regular employees w.e.f. 1.4.1974, have been given benefit of jump increment on reaching stage of Rs. 270 in the pay scale in terms of Sancheti award dated 10.3.1978 (Annex. 7). After having been given benefit in terms of Sancheti Award, the benefit of jump increment given to workmen in question was withdrawn in pursuance of circular issued by the office of the F.A. & Controller of Accounts, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur on the ground that employee appointed/fixed in regular scale of pay on or after 1.4.1974 is not entitled to get the benefit of jump provided for the existing employees of the Board under the RSEB Employees (Emolument) Regulation, 1978. Consequently, recovery of benefit already given to the workmen was sought to be made and it was sought to be withdrawn Immediately. 3. This led to raising of Industrial dispute and it was referred to the Labour Court. 4. The undisputed facts as emanate from the reply submitted on behalf of employer-appellant before the Labour Court that by order dated 4.5.1978, workmen had been regularised with retrospective effect w.e.f. 1.4.1974 and were fixed in the regular pay-scale applicable to the post w.e.f. 1.4.1974. Thus according to admitted position, workmen were borne on the regular cadre on 1.4.1974 and were fixed in the pay-scale applicable to the post as on 1.4.1974. The contention in favour of withdrawal of benefit raised in the claim, was that since workmen were temporary on 31.3.1974, therefore, according to regulation, they were not existing workmen on 1.4.1974 and, therefore, were not entitled to benefit of jump. 5. The contention in favour of withdrawal of benefit raised in the claim, was that since workmen were temporary on 31.3.1974, therefore, according to regulation, they were not existing workmen on 1.4.1974 and, therefore, were not entitled to benefit of jump. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the tabulation of existing employees and existing pay-scale provided in RSEB Employees (Emolument) Regulation, 1978, which reads respectively as under: "Existing Pay Scale" means scale of pay applicable to an 1 employee, but for the coming into force of these regulations, in respect of a post held by him on 1st April, 1974, substantively or in officiating capacity while retaining lien on a permanent post, or in a temporary capacity. "Existing Employees" means an employee who is in service on 1.4.1974 and drawing pay in the existing pay-scale. 6. A bare perusal of aforesaid definitions clearly goes to show that existing employee is one who is holding the post substantively or in officiating capacity having lien on permanent post as on 1.4.1974. Since lo the workmen in question were in employment as temporary prior to 1.4.74 but were regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1974, it cannot be disputed and denied that as on 1.4.1974, they were holding substantive post under the appellants. 7. It is also not in dispute that w.e.f. 1.4.1974, they were fixed in the pay-scale applicable to the post as on 1.4.1974. This also satisfy the test of existing pay-scale given in definition clause 5(i) referred to above. Thus the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that workmen were not existing employees and fixed in existing pay-scale on 1.4.1974 has no substance The definition cannot be read in the light of post held by workmen on 31.3.1974 which apparently is the foundation of contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant and circular issued by office of the FA. & Controller of Accounts, RSEB, Jaipur 8. Apparently, to sustain the circular and the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant, would be to read and re-write the definition provided in RSEB Employees (Emolument) Regulation, 1978. In such event it will have to be read that existing employee shall be one who is in employment prior to 1.4.1974 on substantive post and was continuing on 1.4.74 aid has been fixed in pay-scale prior to 1.4.1974 and was also drawing the salary in the pay-scale applicable on 1.4.1974. In such event it will have to be read that existing employee shall be one who is in employment prior to 1.4.1974 on substantive post and was continuing on 1.4.74 aid has been fixed in pay-scale prior to 1.4.1974 and was also drawing the salary in the pay-scale applicable on 1.4.1974. This modulation in definition amounts to legislation which is impermissible as interpret-oral exercise and certainly was not open to the Controller of Accounts (Control) who is not the legislative authority though there being an admitted fact that respondents workmen were existing employees on 1.4.1974 and drawing the salary in existing pay-scale w.e.f. 1.4.74. They fell to be governed by note (1) of the Sancheti Award which shows that existing employee shall, on fixation of his pay at on reaching subsequently at the stage of Rs. 270 in the scale not carrying EB, have his pay fixed at the stage of Rs. 287 on the date of his next annual grade increment. 9. Apparently, this benefit was given to the respondents workmen on their reaching the stage at which they were entitled for jump in pay and was wrongly withdrawn by the appellant. The award passed by Labour Court which has not been interfered by learned Single Judge, reaches the same conclusion. The same, therefore, does not call for any interference. 4l Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed - Award Affirmed. *******