Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against order R.O.C. No.48-B/2006/RG/B-1 dated 27th March, 2006, issued by the 1st respondent and Lr.No.PAO (HC)/BAS.I/VII/1034 dated May, 2006, issued by the 2nd respondent with further prayer to direct the respondents to fix his pay in the supertime scale of Rs.22,850/= per month from 26. 1997 after deducting Rs.18750/= per month and to provide him the consequential benefits. By the impugned order dated 27th March, 2006, it was ordered to fix the pay of petitioner in the revised scale of Rs.18,750 – 22,850 with effect from 27th June, 1997, i.e., in the selection grade scale. The Treasury and Accounts Department, by impugned order dated May, 2006, fixed the pay accordingly. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the judicial service of Tamil Nadu in 1972 and served in different capacities. He was promoted as District Judge Grade-II in 1987 and further he was granted supertime scale of District Judge in the revised scale on 27th June, 1997 and finally retired after three days on 30th June, 1997. The recommendation of the First National Judicial Pay Commission, commonly known as Shetty Commission, having accepted by the State pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court, the pay of officers were revised with effect from 1st Jan., 1996. The petitioner having retired from service on 30th June, 1996, the matter was considered by the High Court, Madras, and pursuant to its recommendation, his pay was fixed in the revised scale of Rs.18,750 – 22,850, which is the selection grade scale of District Judge as per the recommendation. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he was promoted to supertime scale of District Judge with effect from 27th June, 1997, while fixing his pay in the revised scale of pay, such fixation was made in the selection grade scale, a scale lower than the scale of supertime grade. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid fixation practically amounts to reduction to lower scale of pay. 4. The original proceeding of the administrative side of this Court was produced before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid fixation practically amounts to reduction to lower scale of pay. 4. The original proceeding of the administrative side of this Court was produced before us. From the said proceeding it appears that when the matter of fixation of pay was taken, having noticed that the requisite period in the selection grade scale had not been completed by various officers, none of the District Judges were provided with supertime scale of pay in the revised scale. We are of the view that the said proceeding was not properly drawn up as it was not a question of promotion of one or other officer from a lower to higher grade, i.e., from basic grade to selection grade scale or supertime scale, but was a matter of fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay. It is in this background, to find out whether the pay of the petitioner was properly fixed, we have noticed the relevant orders issued by the State Government after the recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the rules relating to fixation of pay, as discussed hereunder :- Prior to the recommendation of Shetty Commission and its acceptance, there were two scales in the cadre of District Judge, namely :- i) District Judge (Basic Grade) – Rs.15,000 – 400 – 18,600 ii) District Judge (Supertime Scale - Rs.16,400 – 400 – 20,000 Pursuant to the Supreme Court order in All India Judges Case ( 2002 (4) SCC 247 ), the State of Tamil Nadu implemented the recommendation of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission) vide G.O. Ms. No.289 dated 31st march, 2003, issued from Home (Courts IA) Department. No.289 dated 31st march, 2003, issued from Home (Courts IA) Department. The following revised scale of pay was allowed to the District Judges with effect from 1st Jan., 1996 :- By subsequent order dated 30th June, 2003, while Assured Career Progression scheme of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) were communicated, in respect to District Judge, for grant of selection and supertime scale, following instruction was issued by the State Government :- "25% of cadre strength of District Judges (Rs.16750 – 400 – 19150 – 450 – 20500) who have put in not less than 5 years of service in that cadre shall be awarded Selection Grade Scale (Rs.18750 – 400 – 19150 – 450 – 21850 – 500 – 22850) and 10% of cadre strength of District Judges who have put in not less than 3 years of service in the Selection Grade scale (Rs.18750 – 400 – 19150 – 450 – 21850 – 500 – 22850) whall be awarded Super time scale (Rs.22850 – 500 – 24850) and both the scales be given by selection on the basis of the Merit-cum-Seniority." Thereafter, High Court fixed the strength of selection grade and supertime scale post of District Judges as on 1st July, 1996 as per the government order. This was noticed by the State Government in its G.O. Ms. No.1385 dated 29th Dec., 2003, issued from Home (Courts IA) Department. Having noticed that there were some confusion in fixation of pay in the revised scale, appropriate instruction was issued showing the manner in which pay was to be fixed. The relevant paragraphs 2 and 4 of the aforesaid letter are quoted hereunder :- "2. Accordingly, the High Court has fixed 22 posts as District Judges (Selection Grade) and 9 posts as District Judges (Supertime scale) on the basis of 7. 96 cadre strength of District Judges, i.e., 89 and orders were issued by the High Court that 22 District Judges are eligible for selection grade of pay of Rs.18750 – 400 – 19150 – 450 – 21850 .– 500 – 22850 and 9 District Judges are eligible for Supertime scale of pay of Rs.22850 .– 500 -24850. * * * * * * * * 4. * * * * * * * * 4. The Government have carefully examined the proposal of the Registrar General, High Court in para 3 above and decided to accept the same, taking into consideration that the movement of District Judges to Selection Grade and District Judges (Selection Grade) to Supertime scale is on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Accordingly the Government direct that the pay of District Judges (Entry Level) who have been moved to Selection Grade after completing 5 years and the District Judges (Selection Grade) who have been moved to Supertime scale after completing 3 years in that scale be fixed under FR 22-B taking into consideration their increase in duties and responsibilities and treating the movement of District Judges to Selection Grade and District Judges, Selection Grade to Supertime scale as deemed promotion." 5. In the present case, as observed earlier, we are not required to consider whether the petitioner was fit for grant of selection grade scale on completion of five years of service in the entry level or was fit for grant of supertime scale on completion of three years in the selection grade. The only question required to be determined is whether the pay of the petitioner was properly fixed in the revised scale of pay as per rules. 6. FR 22-B as referred to in G.O. Ms. No.1385 dated 29th Dec., 2003, and quoted above relates to fixation of pay if a person is promoted or appointed to a higher post having responsibility of greater importance, including selection grade and supertime scale in the cadre of District Judges. So far as fixation of pay on revision of pay is concerned, it is fixed as per FR 23, which reads as follows :- "23. The holder of the post, the scale of pay of which is changed, shall be treated as if he was transferred to a new post on the new scale of pay. If the revision of the scale of pay is without any increase in duties and responsibilities, pay shall be fixed with effect from the date of revision of scale of pay at the same stage, if there is a stage in the revised scale equal to the pay drawn in the old scale of pay and if there is no such stage, pay shall be fixed at the next higher stage. In both these cases, the next increment in the new scale shall accrue on the normal date, namely the date on which the next increment is due in the old scale of pay." From the aforesaid FR 23, it will be evident that on revision of scale of pay without any increase in duties and responsibilities, the pay has to be fixed at the same stage. If there is no such stage in the revised scale of pay equivalent to the stage of the old scale of pay, in such case pay only has to be fixed at the next higher stage. 7. In the case of petitioner, he was granted supertime scale in the unrevised scale of pay of District Judge, i.e., in the old scale of Rs.16400 – 450 – 20000. As per the old scale, as evident from letter dated May, 2006, issued from the Treasury and Accounts Department, he was drawing pay at Rs.18522 (Rs.17,150 (+) 8% DA = Rs.18522) in the said old scale of pay. Therefore, as per FR 23, in the revised scale of pay, his pay should be fixed at the same stage of pay as he was receiving, i.e., Rs.18,522/=. If no such stage is available, only then in such case pay to be fixed in the next higher stage. From the aforesaid FR 23, as it is evident that except for the reason as shown above, next higher stage cannot be granted in such a case, the question of grant of next higher grade in the revised scale of pay does not arise. In the garb of fixation of pay in the revised scale, no person could be given next higher grade in the revised scale of pay, which will otherwise amount to promotion. Thus the petitioner, while claiming fixation of pay in the revised scale, cannot ask for fixation of pay in a grade higher than the grade in which he can be accommodated. As the petitioner was receiving pay at the stage of Rs.18522/=, next higher stage being Rs.18750/=, which is the beginning of the selection grade scale, he is entitled for fixation of pay in the revised scale of Rs.18750 – 400 – 19150 – 450 – 21850 – 500 – 22850, which has been allowed in his favour. As the petitioner was receiving pay at the stage of Rs.18522/=, next higher stage being Rs.18750/=, which is the beginning of the selection grade scale, he is entitled for fixation of pay in the revised scale of Rs.18750 – 400 – 19150 – 450 – 21850 – 500 – 22850, which has been allowed in his favour. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 27th March, 2006, nor the letter No.PAO (HC)/BAS.I/VII/1034 dated May, 2006, issued by the 2nd respondent. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.