SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner an employee of an aided school was appointed to the post of Assistant Master on 4. 12. 1978 and was working in Sri Durgaparameshwari Higher Primary School, Bantakallu, Udupi Taluk. The respondents vide order Annexure-A dated 21. 1. 02 gave a benefit of an additional increment to the persons who have put in more than 20 years of blameless service but had no benefit of having a promotion. The petitioner fully qualified to get the additional increment vide Annexure-A. Accordingly it was granted to the petitioner. It appears that the scholar strength of Sri Durgaparameshwari School came down rendering the services of the petitioner a surplus staff. The respondents posted the petitioner to K. M. Aided Higher Primary School, Hirgana in Karkala Taluk by exercise of the powers under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Education Rules. After the posting of the petitioner to the aided school at Hirgana, the respondents passed an order withdrawing the benefit of additional increment vide Annexure-D dated 22. 10. 2002. The said order is impugned in this Writ Petition. ( 2 ) THE learned Government Pleader referred to the proviso to sub rule 6 of rule 11 to justify the order at Annexure-A which reads thus:"6) On receipt of the vacancy position, the Government Authority shall without prejudice to initiating action under sub-rule (1) allot through computerized counseling the retrenched employee on the basis of seniority and after taking into consideration the subject requirement and reservation and roster point, to any other institution where a regular sanctioned vacancy exists and direct the concerned management to issue appointment order to issue appointment order to such candidates and direct such candidates to report for duty in the said institution. Provided that in all cases where no person is available in the reservation category and roster as per the requirement of the institution then the senior-most candidate irrespective of reservation and roster shall be allotted. Provided further that no recruitment shall be made by any aided institution until the list of retrenched teacher are exhausted. Provided also that the retrenched employees so appointed in the new institution will get seniority in the new institution from the date of joining the institution. However, the services rendered in the earlier institution will count for pay leave and pensionary benefits. Provided also that the retrenched employees so appointed in the new institution will get seniority in the new institution from the date of joining the institution. However, the services rendered in the earlier institution will count for pay leave and pensionary benefits. Provided also further that the retrenched employee who is allotted to a new institution shall not be entitled to any compensation provided under the Act. Provided also that no retrenched employees/staff shall be allotted to a minority institution for being appointed against a vacancy. Provided also that in so far as minority institutions are concerned the competent authority on his own verification or on the report of his subordinate officers finds that there is an excess strength of teachers/staff on account of reasons mentioned in the above rules shall take action to retrench the excess teachers/staff following the same procedure as specified under these rules. The Competent Authority shall withdraw salary grants in respect of such excess/retrenched staff. The learned High Court Government Pleader strenuously contended that by virtue of the proviso the previous service rendered in the earlier institution will only count for pay, leave, pensionary benefits and there is no pay protection granted. Further the reemployed person in the new institution will not be eligible to claim seniority from the date of appointment but the seniority would be counted only from the date of joining the new institution. Therefore, argued that the benefit of additional increment granted is rightly withdrawn. " ( 3 ) I do not find any merit in the argument. The proposition argued by the High Court Government Pleader if accepted would result in highly inequitable and a drastic situation to enable the Government to pay only the entry scale to every reposted employee in the new institution by denying the benefit of the increments earned by the employee prior to reposting. The provisions of the rule although explicitly do not refer to pay protection but as a matter of sound equity the pay benefits enjoyed by the employee cannot be tilted under the guise of reposting. The petitioner may not be entitled to protection of seniority but he is definitely entitled to pay protection. Whatever the scale of pay the petitioner was getting earlier shall be the pay scale at the new posting. The petitioner may not be entitled to protection of seniority but he is definitely entitled to pay protection. Whatever the scale of pay the petitioner was getting earlier shall be the pay scale at the new posting. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed, the order at Annexure-D is bad in law, accordingly, it is quashed. It is directed that the benefits of Annexure-A to be restituted to the petitioner and recoveries effected if any to be refunded to the petitioner. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file her memo of appearance within four weeks. --- *** --- .