Judgment :- This writ petition is filed by the petitioner association to quash the proceedings of the respondent in memo No. 692/HA1/96, dated 14.2.1997, and to direct the respondents to fix their initial pay in the post of Manager in accordance with proviso to Regulation 3.4 of the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Employees Pay and Allowances Regulations and in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 22-B and with benefit of arrears. 2. It is the case of the petitioner association that it is a registered body under the Indian Trade Unions Act, with registration No.2140/MDS. The petitioner association consists exclusively of the officers of the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. On behalf of the petitioner association 14 members of the association, belonging to the Hotel Division joined duty as Assistant Managers in the respondent's Corporation, between 1984 to 1988. It is also stated that pursuant to the fifth Pay Commission's recommendation, the first respondent fixed the pay scale for the post of Assistant Manager as Rs. 1820-60-2300-75-3200 by proceedings No. 11905/A2/89 dated 21.10.1989, with effect from 1.6.1988. Accordingly, the scale of pay for the 14 officers mentioned in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was fixed in the pay scale 1820-60-2300-75-3200 in the proceedings of the first respondent in No. 228/RM/MDS/89, dated 24.10.1989. All the 14 officers were permitted to draw the arrears from 1.6.1989 onwards. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association that the first respondent by proceedings No.702/HAI/95, dated 4.1.1996, upgraded the existing 15 posts of Assistant Manager as Manager in the scale of pay of Rs. 2000-602300-75-3200. Pursuant to the above orders, the first respondent posted the afore-mentioned 14 Assistant Managers in the upgraded post of Managers in the time scale of Rs. 2000-602300-75-3200, with effect from 2.12.1995, by his proceedings in No.692/HA1/96 dated 29.1.1996. Thus all the 14 officers are holding the post of Manager with effect from 28.12.1995. 4. It is further submitted, on behalf of the petitioner association that the first respondent, in proceedings No.692/HA1/96, dated 15.2.1996, fixed the pay of the 14 officers in the post of Manager at Rs. 2300/- in the time scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-75-3200 with effect from 28.12.1995. It is the case of the petitioner association that the fixation of pay of Rs. It is further submitted, on behalf of the petitioner association that the first respondent, in proceedings No.692/HA1/96, dated 15.2.1996, fixed the pay of the 14 officers in the post of Manager at Rs. 2300/- in the time scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-75-3200 with effect from 28.12.1995. It is the case of the petitioner association that the fixation of pay of Rs. 2300/-, by the proceedings dated 15.2.1996, to the Managers in question is not in accordance with Regulation 3.4 of the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporations Employees Pay and Allowance Regulations and also not in accordance with Fundamental Rule 22-B and the pay should have been fixed at Rs. 2375/-, either by adopting the rule of adding notionally one increment in the lower post, and fixing the next higher stage in the scale applicable to the higher post, or by adopting the rule of 5% benefit under Fundamental Rule 22-B. It is the claim of the petitioner association that the appointment to the upgraded post of Manager is "Promotion" to a higher post. 5. However, the respondent had informed the above six Managers by the impugned proceedings in Memo No. 692/HA1/96, dated 14.2.1997, that their existing posts were upgraded to the Manager scale and not promoted, and that as per Rule, pay fixation under Fundamental Rule 22-B cannot be applied to this case. "Under the proviso to Regulation 3.4 of the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Employees Pay and Allowances Regulations, in the case of an employee already in the same Corporation, his pay in the newly appointed post shall be fixed at the stage of his existing pay together with a notional increment in the existing scale of pay. By virtue of this Regulation the initial pay in the post of Manager should have been fixed as Rs. 2375/- instead of Rs. 2300/- as they were drawing a basic pay of Rs. 2240/- in the lower post of Assistant Manager." 6. According to the petitioner association, under the 1998 revised pay Rules, the abovementioned 14 officers will be entitled to draw Rs. 7300/- on 28.12.1995 and Rs. 7500/- on 1.1.1996. It is further stated by the petitioner association that on 16.10.1996, by G.O. Ms. No. 198 Information and Tourism Development Department, the second respondent reduced the scale of pay for the post of Assistant Manager from the existing pay scale of Rs. 1820-3200 to a lower scale of Rs. 7300/- on 28.12.1995 and Rs. 7500/- on 1.1.1996. It is further stated by the petitioner association that on 16.10.1996, by G.O. Ms. No. 198 Information and Tourism Development Department, the second respondent reduced the scale of pay for the post of Assistant Manager from the existing pay scale of Rs. 1820-3200 to a lower scale of Rs. 1640-2900, with effect from 1.6.1988. It was also ordered that 10% of the arrears drawn by the Assistant Managers from 1.6.1988 be recovered from them. However, the order, dated 10.9.1998, was challenged before this Court in the W.P. No.17692 of 1998. 7. It is submitted by the petitioner association that all the 14 officers are now Managers in the existing scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-75-3200 for which the corresponding revised scale of pay is Rs. 6500-200-10500 under the 1999 Revised Pay Rules. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings by the first respondent, dated 12.2.1997, and to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the 14 officers on their appointment as Manager in accordance with the pay Regulation of the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation and in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 22-B. 8. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni 1996 (1) SCC 562 : JT 1995 (9) SC 523 wherein it was held that: "In the literal sense the word "promote" means "to advance to a higher position, grade, or honour". So also "promotion" means "advancement or preferment in honour, dignity, rank or grade". (See: Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition, p. 1009). "Promotion" thus not only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade. In service law also the expression "promotion" has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that "promotion" can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post". (See: Union of India and another v. S.S. Ranade 1995 (4) SCC 462 : JT 1995 (5) SC 582).” 9. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and prior to the formation of the Corporation, it was functioning as Tourism Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and prior to the formation of the Corporation, it was functioning as Tourism Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Consequent to the formation of the Corporation in the year 197 1, staff who were working in various Public Sector undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu were transferred and posted in the Corporation, though the Corporation did not have any codified service rules. However, service rules were first codified in the year 1975, amended later in the year 1979 and enlarged in the year 1988. Thereafter, the service conditions of all the employees of the Corporation are now governed by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Service Regulations, 1988. However, in respect of matters involving policy, the Government of Tamil Nadu is approached for appropriate orders. As regards financial implications, the Corporation is governed by the advice of the Bureau of Public Enterprise. Article 82 of the memorandum of Articles of the Association of the Corporation reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these Articles, the Government may, from time to time issue such directives or instructions as they may think fit in regard to the finances and the conduct of the business and affairs of the Company and Board shall duly approve it and give effect to such directives or instructions." 10. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondent Corporation is governed by paragraph 2.4 of the Service Regulations. It is stipulated in the Service Regulations that merit and ability will be the basis for promotion for all categories and seniority will be taken into consideration only if merit and ability are approximately equal. The Service Regulations also envigage a minimum period of service before which an employee can be considered for promotion to the next higher post. It is further stated that promotion is not automatic or time bound. 11. Since numerous representations were received from the employees of the Corporation claiming that they were stagnating in a particular post for a long time and requested the Corporation to consider them for promotion, posts were upgraded without additional responsibilities. It is further stated that promotion is not automatic or time bound. 11. Since numerous representations were received from the employees of the Corporation claiming that they were stagnating in a particular post for a long time and requested the Corporation to consider them for promotion, posts were upgraded without additional responsibilities. In the event of the death of an employee who is upgraded, the post lapses and recruitment is done only for the post in the original position and not in the upgraded post and therefore, the employee is not automatically entitled for 5% increase in the basic pay of the lower post as per Fundamental Rule 22-B. Therefore, based on the representation by the Assistant Managers, the respondent Corporation had felt that the post of Assistant Managers could be upgraded as that of Managers which will not involve any additional responsibility or duties. A sub-committee was formed to go into the matter and advise the Board. The sub-committee had recommended upgradation of 15 Assistant Managers working in the Tamil Nadu Hotels as Managers in the scale of pay 2000-60-2300-75-3200 since the monetary commitment was meagre as the increment and maximum scale of pay of the Assistant Manager and Manager are one and the same. However, it was also recommended that fresh recruitment will be in the level of Assistant Manager. The Board of Directors, in its meeting on 28.12.1995, accepted the recommendation. Under these circumstances, the posts of 14 Assistant Managers were upgraded as Managers. However, they sought 5% increase in their basic pay in the lower post by proceedings dated 14.2.1997 and the Assistant Managers were informed that as they were not promoted, they would not be entitled to higher pay scale as envisaged under Fundamental Rule 22-B and they were given one notional increment. 12. It is also submitted that the fitment of the members of the petitioner association was properly done and there can be no grievance, whatsoever, regarding the same. It is also stated that none of the officers represented by the petitioner association were promoted. They are not automatically entitled to the benefit of minimum 5% in fixation of pay as given to all the Assistant Managers in their upgraded post and were given the benefit of minimum one increment in their pay fixation as applicable in the case of upgradation of posts. 13. They are not automatically entitled to the benefit of minimum 5% in fixation of pay as given to all the Assistant Managers in their upgraded post and were given the benefit of minimum one increment in their pay fixation as applicable in the case of upgradation of posts. 13. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this Court as well as the Supreme Court has, in a number of decided cases, held that the employee is entitled to draw his pay in the post in which he is discharging his duties and responsibilities. It is also pointed out that relying on the following cases: (a) Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair AIR 1999 SC 83 8: 1998 (4) SCC 291 : 1998-II-LLJ- 1191 (b) Secretary-cum- Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma AIR 1998 SC 2909 : 1998 (5) SCC 87 ; (c) Jaswant Singh v. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Assn. AIR 2002 SC 231 : 2002 (1) SCC 261 ; (d) Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal 2004 (1) ATJ 24. 14. This Court in W. P. No. 31918 of 2003 by an order, dated 7.4.2006, N. Rajesekaran Nair v. Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department has held that it is clear, once a person has been discharging the duties in the higher post, he is entitled to get the pay and allowances due to the said post 15. Therefore, it is clear that once the members of the petitioner association who have come before this court had been promoted to higher posts then it is only logical that they should be paid the attendant benefits due to the promoted posts. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the writ petition ought to be allowed. Therefore, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.