Judgment T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 212. 2005 in O.A. No. 1153 of 2004. 2. The petitioner, as applicant before the Tribunal, filed Original Application seeking for quashing the orders passed by the 4th respondent herein dated 23.09.2002, 112. 2002, 28. 2003 and 110. 2003 and to direct the respondent to ensure the pay at Rs.5700/- and grant ACP Scheme benefit-in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-150-8,000 under ACP Orders on the strength of paragraph 15 of the Government of India Memorandum dated 09.08.1999, by virtue of the fact, the applicant has already completed 24 years regular service and accordingly regulate pension and terminal benefits. 3. It is the case of the applicant that he joined the Government of India Press, on 03.04.1964 as Copy Holder on regular basis and subsequently transferred to the Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi. The applicant was promoted to the post of Reader on 14.02.1983 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.5,700/- in the scale of pay of Rs.4,0006,000. On a request to the Government of India press, Coimbatore, and was reverted to a lower grade namely to the post of Copy holder on and from 31.01.1998. 4. The grievance of the applicant is that on joining the Government of India Press, Coimbatore, his pay was fixed at Rs.4,590/- the lowest post of Copy Holder without protecting his substantive pay of Rs.1,110 per month in the basic pay alone. The applicant further submitted that was orally assured the 4th respondent that the post of Reader would be falling vacant shortly and he would be promoted to the post of Reader straight away and would be given pay of Rs.5700/- drawn by him while working in the 3rd respondent press. The applicant further submitted that his lien in the parent office of the respondent and the said lien was neither snapped nor terminated as he was holding the substantive post of Reader. 5. The applicant further submitted that his lien in the parent office of the respondent and the said lien was neither snapped nor terminated as he was holding the substantive post of Reader. 5. The further grievance is that the oral assurance given to the applicant to promote him to the post of Reader was not fulfilled despite the fact that the post fell vacant on 01.04.1999 in the office of the 4th respondent and though the applicant was fully eligible for being promoted, he was not offered the promotional post and thereby he was being harassed and put to great mental tension. 6. The applicant further submits that the ACP Scheme was introduced by the Government of India with effect from, 09.08.1999 which envisages financial up gradations given to the Government servants on completion of 12/24 years with no promotion and that since the applicant had already been promoted as Reader, carrying the scale of pay Rs.4,000-6,000, substantively from the post of Copy Holder, which was carrying the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590, the second up gradation was overdue with the introduction of ACP Scheme on 8. 1999 and he was entitled to be granted the pay scale of Rs.5,000-7,000. 7. Therefore, the grievance of the applicant seems to be three fold, (i) that the pay which he was drawing while functioning in the office of the 3rd respondent was not protected when he was transferred to the office of the 4th respondent; (ii) though he was eligible for financial up gradation under the ACP Scheme, the same was not granted and (iii) that he was not granted promotion to the post of Reader despite vacancy arose in the office of the 4th respondent. With the above grounds, the applicant approached the Tribunal for the relief as stated above. 8. The respondents filed a reply statement, inter alia contending that the applicant sought for transfer to the Government of India Press, Coimbatore, and it was his volition and the transfer was ordered subject to certain conditions. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the conditions, based on which the applicant was transferred. The relevant Office Order dated 29.01.1998 is extracted hereunder: “Consequent upon the approval of the Directorate of Printing, New Delhi vide their office Memo. No.2/14(1)/93-AI, Dated 19.01.1998, Sh. P.S. Balakrishnan, Reader of this press, Coimbatore, as Copy Holder on his own request. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the conditions, based on which the applicant was transferred. The relevant Office Order dated 29.01.1998 is extracted hereunder: “Consequent upon the approval of the Directorate of Printing, New Delhi vide their office Memo. No.2/14(1)/93-AI, Dated 19.01.1998, Sh. P.S. Balakrishnan, Reader of this press, Coimbatore, as Copy Holder on his own request. Accordingly, he is relieved on his duties from this press with effect from 31.01.1998 (A.N) on the following terms and conditions: (1) That he will not claim any seniority of service rendered by him in the Government of Indian Press, Ring Road, and will be ranked as Junior most Copy Holder in the Government of Indian press, Coimbatore, and his seniority will count from the date of his joining Government of Indian Press, Coimbatore.” (2) That he will not claim any T.A/D.A. and joining time etc., (3) That he will not seek retransfer in future.” 9. The respondents would further submit that the applicant was granted second financial up gradation with effect from 09.08.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000, which is equivalent to the grade of Reader on regular promotion and he was not granted second ACP as he has already earned one promotion in his Career Promotion as per the instruction of the Directorate of printing, dated 23.09.2002 read with the Circular of Department of Personnel & Training dated 03.09.2002. 10. The respondent would further submit that the applicant joined the post of Copy Holder in the Office of the 4th respondent on reversion on his own interest from the post of Reader with effect from 06.02.1998 and his pay was fixed at Rs.4,590/- per month in the reverted grade/post in the scale of pay of Rs.3,050-75-3,950-80-4,590/- i.e. the maximum of the scale of pay in the reverted grade/post of Copy Holder. The respondents placed reliance on FR 22 1(a) (3) for fixing his pay by stating that when appointment to the new post is made on his request under sub rule (a) Rule 1 of the said rules, and the maximum pay in the times scale of that post held regularly and that in respect of the old post held regularly and that he shall draw the maximum as his initial pay in the scale of lower reverted post. 11. 11. The respondents would further submit that the applicant was placed as Junior most Copy Holder in the seniority list among copy Holder of government of India press Coimbatore as eligible for the post of Reader and as and when his turn is matured in the seniority list, he would be considered for promotion. The respondents denied the allegations regarding the verbal assurance for being promoted to the post Reader in the office of the 4th respondent. The respondent would further submit that the applicants opted for voluntary with effect from 010. 1999. 12. The Tribunal by order dated 212. 2005 dismissed the original Application as being devoid of merits holding that the applicant has not shown how his entire 24years of service rendered by him from 1964 has not been counted for the ACP Scheme. The tribunal accepted the contention raised by the department in the reply statement and proceeded to hold that the key feature of the clarification issued by the Government of India on 18.07.2001 is that the financial up gradation under ACP Scheme is to be allowed on the hierarchy of the new post i.e. in the post of next in line to the post of copy Holder namely Reader which has been done already in his case. 13. The applicant is before this court assailing the correctness of the Order passes by the Tribunal, contending that the stand taken by the department relying on FR 221 (a) (3) is erroneous and his pay ought to have been protected in terms of FR 22 1 (a) (3) (b) (20). 14. The applicant would further submit that the attitude of the department in not considering him for promotion to the post of Reader, which had fallen vacant on 01.04.1999 is erroneous and that the department ought to have protected the applicant’s pay on his joining duty at Rs. 5,700/-, which he was drawing at the time of relief as Reader from the officer of the 3rd respondent but thus erroneously his pay fixed at Rs.4,590/- and thus injustice he been meted out to him. 15. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and carefully perused the entire materials available on record. 16. 15. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and carefully perused the entire materials available on record. 16. Before proceeding to consider the claim of the applicant, and as to whether the department was justified in their action, it would be relevant to note the terns and conditions on which the applicant was transferred from the office of the 3rd respondent to the office of the 4th respondent. 17. In the earlier paragraph of this order, we have extracted the Order of the transfer dated 29.01.1998, a perusal of the said order reveals that the applicant, who was transferred to the 4th respondent press as Copy Holder at his own request and was relived of his duties from the office of the 3rd respondent with effect from 31.01.1998 (A.N) subject to three conditions. A perusal of the three conditions do not state that the applicant’s pay would nit be protected. In facts, the condition is only to the effect that he cannot claim any seniority of service rendered by him in the office of the 3rd respondent and he will be ranked as Junior most Copy Holder in the Government if India press, Coimbatore, and his seniority will court from the date of joining time and will not seek for re-transfer in future. 18. Therefore in our view, the question as to whether the pay has to be protected in terms of fundamental rules becomes academic, since the condition of transfer does not put an embargo on pay protection. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the respondent to fix him in a lower scale without protecting the scale of pay drawn while functioning in the officer of the 3rd respondent is erroneous. 19. FR 15 state that the president may transfer a Government servant from one post to another provided that except (i) on account of inefficiency or mis-behavior or (ii) on his written request, Government servant shall not be transferred to or accept in a case) covered by Rule 49 appointed to officiating any post carrying on less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien. s20. It is to be noted that FR 15 does not speak of any reversion. One of the contingency contemplated under FR15 (a) (2) is based on written request of the employee. s20. It is to be noted that FR 15 does not speak of any reversion. One of the contingency contemplated under FR15 (a) (2) is based on written request of the employee. Bearing this in mind, if we peruse the provision of FR22, the applicant is entitled for protection of his pay in term of FR 221 (a) 3 (b) 2 and the new pay scale should not be less than the pay already being drawn by the applicant in the substantive post of Reader. 21. It is to be further noted that as per the ACP Scheme financial up gradation shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service, and the seconds up gradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of first up gradation. As clarified by the Memorandum dated 10.01.2000 in cases where employees have already completed 24years of regular service with or without promotion, the 2ndfinancial up gradation under the scheme shall be granted directly. Therefore, the denial of up gradation of pay of the petitioner by the respondents on completion of 24 years is against the Memorandum referred to above. 22. Division Bench of this Court in a decision in Union of India v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, (2002) 1 MLJ 439 , was considering a case where an Assistant Station Master, promoted to the post of Station Master Grade in South Central Railway, request for transfer to Southern Railway. The Railway Administration while considering his request, by relying on Railway Establishment code, Rule 226 stated that he should be demoted to the post of Assistants Station Master. In such circumstances, The Division Bench of this court had held that it is a trite principle that where concerned person has to be put at the bottom of seniority for doing so, he cannot be revered to the post in which he was working earlier, especially when in the facts of the said case the incumbent had earned two promotions and merely because it was a request transfer, there cannot be a reversion and if that be so it would mean an absurd interpretation of the rule. This order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.16172 of 1998 etc., batch dated 08.07.2005, wherein the Division Bench considered the issue as to whether the incumbent coming on a request transfer is entitled to have his pay protected in the scale, which they were drawing prior to transfer. We are also informed that the SLP filed against the said order of the Division Bench has been judgment referred above would squarely applied to the facts of the present case. As noted, the order of transfer did not state in explicit terms that his pay cannot be protected, whereas in terms of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the view that the respondents are not justified in fixing the applicant’s pay in a lower scale especially after he earned his promotion to the post of Reader and was holding that post in a substantive capacity. 23. For the foregoing discussion, the writ petition has to succeed and accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the relief claimed by the applicant in the Original Application is granted as prayed for. The applicant shall be granted monetary and other attendant benefits and his pension may according to be re-fixed. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.