Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. To espouse cause of its members, it has filed this writ petition through President of its Haryana Unit. Petitioners No. 2 to 146 are the retired/serving officers of the three Services constituting the Defence Force of Union of India. Detail regarding their service career is mentioned under signatures of each petitioner at the end of this petition. 2. By filing this writ petition, petitioners pray that their pay be refixed, as recommended by the IV Pay Commission, without deducting the amount of "rank pay". 3. Brief facts of the case are that the IVth Pay Commission was reconstituted to suggest revision in pay scales of the officers of all the three wings of the Armed Forces, i.e. Army, Navy and Air Force. As per facts on record, recommendation, made by the Commission, was accepted by respondent No. 1. Relevant portion of the recommendations of the Pay Commission, upon which reliance has been placed, read thus: "28.13 We also recommend that in addition to pay in the above integrated scale the following rank pays may be given to officers in the Army and their equivalent in the other services - xxx xxx xxx "In Chapter 30, we have recommended the method of fixation of pay in proposed scales for civilian employees. We recommend that the same methods may be adopted for fixation of pay of Armed Force personnel, also. Since Rank pay is a separate element for officers upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent, the same may be taken into account while fixing pay in the interval scale of pay recommended by us". 4. It is case of the petitioners that to implement the above said instructions, in the case of Army personnel, instructions bearing No. SAI- 1/S/87 were issued, wherein basis pay, existing scale, revised scale, rank pay and revised emoluments were defined as under : "(a) "Basic Pay" means pay in the scale of the rank. It does not include Flying pay, Qualification Pay, Technical Pay, Personal Pay or any other type of Special Pay. (b) "Existing Scale" in relation to an officer means the present scale of pay, whether fixed or otherwise, of the rank applicable to him as on 01 January 1986 whether held in a substantive or acting capacity. It does not include Flying pay, Qualification Pay, Technical Pay, Personal Pay or any other type of Special Pay. (b) "Existing Scale" in relation to an officer means the present scale of pay, whether fixed or otherwise, of the rank applicable to him as on 01 January 1986 whether held in a substantive or acting capacity. (c) "Revised Scale" in relation to officers upto the rank of Brigadier of Arms and Service and upto the rank of Colonel of MNS, means the respective integrated pay scale and in relation to higher ranks means he scales of pay whether fixed or otherwise specified against rank in paragraph 3 of this Instruction. (d) "Rank Pay" means the pay admissible to an officer appropriate to the rank actually held, either in acting or substantive capacity, in addition to the pay in the revised scale. Rank Pay form part of the basic pay. (e) "Revised Emoluments" means the basic pay of the officer in the revised scale of pay inclusive of Rank Pay if any." 5. It was further provided that revised emoluments of the Army personnel would mean basic pay of the officer in the revised scale of pay inclusive of "rank pay", if any. Scale of "rank pay" was also indicated in those instructions and it was provided that rank pay shall be paid in addition to the pay in the integrated revised pay scale. Grievance of the petitioners is basically regarding instruction No. 6, which provides the method for fixation of initial pay, in the revised pay scale. It reads thus : "6. Fixation of initial pay in the revised scales will be regulated as follows :- (a)(i) An amount representing 20 per cent of the basic pay in the existing scale shall be added to the existing emoluments of the officer. (ii) After the existing emoluments have been so increased, an amount equivalent to the rank pay, if any, appropriate to the rank held by the officer on 1 January 1986 at the rates prescribed in para 3(a)(ii) above, will be deducted. Thereafter, the officers pay will be fixed in the revised scale at the stage next above the amount thus computed. Thereafter, the officers pay will be fixed in the revised scale at the stage next above the amount thus computed. In case the stage of fixation falls below the minimum pay for the rank held by the officer on 1 January, 1986 as prescribed in the tables below, the pay will be stepped up to such minimum provided the officer has completed the length of reckonable commissioned service indicated in the same table : (emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx" 6 It is contention of the petitioners that amount of rank pay cannot be deducted, as has been provided in the above said instruction. It was stated by the petitioners that a similar controversy was taken up by the High Court of Kerala in the case of Major A.K. Dhanpalan (OP 2448 of 1986N), wherein vide judgment dated October 5, 1988, a learned Single Judge held as under : "respondents 2 and 3 had completely misunderstood the scope of extending the benefit of the payment of rank pay to the Army Officers. Rank pay is something which has been given to the Army Officers in addition to the existing pay scale. That is not an amount which has to be deducted in order to arrive at the total emoluments which an Army Officer is entitled to get." 7. The respondent - Union of India in that case was ordered to revise pay of the petitioners in that case w.e.f. January 1, 1986, without deducting the rank pay of Rs. 2,001/-. The above said decision was upheld by the High Court of Kerala vide judgment dated July 4, 2003, and it was held that the component of rank pay shall be added in the substantive pay of an Army officer. Matter went to the Honble Supreme Court. Appeal (Civil) CC 5908 of 2005, filed by the Union of India was dismissed on July 12, 2005. The record reveals that thereafter the petitioners sent demand notices to the official respondents to give them the similar relief. However, when nothing was done, they have filed this writ petition. 8. It is evident from the records that similar writ petitions were filed by members of the Armed Forces in various High Courts. Union of India filed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2007 for transfer of those cases. However, when nothing was done, they have filed this writ petition. 8. It is evident from the records that similar writ petitions were filed by members of the Armed Forces in various High Courts. Union of India filed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2007 for transfer of those cases. Taking note of above said fact, on February 28, 2008, following order was passed in this case : "Reply by way of affidavit, filed in the Court today, is permitted to be taken on record. Learned counsel for the parties point out that in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2007, the Honble Supreme Court has passed an order of stay of further proceedings. It is mentioned that the Transfer Petition is filed on behalf of the Union of India in respect of the controversy raised in the present petition as the same controversy is also raised in many other High Courts. In view of the said fact, the proceedings in the present writ petition are adjourned sine die. To be listed for hearing after the decision of the Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 207. Liberty is also granted to the parties to seek appropriate orders after decision of the said petition as well." 9. The petitioners have filed C.M. No. 5647 of 2010, wherein it has been stated that the Honble Supreme Court has decided the matter in their favour and a prayer has been made to dispose of this writ petition in terms of the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court and also the High Court of Kerala, as mentioned earlier. 10. Counsel for the parties heard. 11. Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the Union of India, has failed to show as to why the case of the petitioners is not covered by ratio of the judgment, passed by the Honble Supreme Court and also the High Court of Kerala. A reading of the facts of this case clearly indicates that (i) "rank pay" is an element separate from the basic pay, (ii) "rank Pay" is admissible to the officers of the rank of Captain to Brigadier and their equivalent and (iii) "rank pay" was to be included in the substantive pay while revising pay of the officers in the Armed Forces, as recommended by the IVth Pay Commission. 12. 12. In view of the above, it is clear that in addition to the integrated pay scale, "rank pay" must also be paid to the officers in the Army and their equivalent in the other Services. The instructions to the contrary, which provide that after revising the pay scale, amount of rank pay be deducted did not find favour with the Honble Supreme Court when Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2007 was disposed of. Vide order dated March 8, 2010, judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala was affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court by observing as under: "We have carefully perused the judgment dated 5.10.1998 of the learned Singly Judge as well as judgment dated 4.7.2003 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala and we respectfully agree with the reasoning given therein for grant of rank pay retrospectively from 1.1.1986. We also direct interest to be paid thereon at 6% p.a. Accordingly, these writ petitions as well as transferred writ petitions are allowed." (emphasis supplied) 13 In view of the settled position, as mentioned above, we are of the opinion the rank pay is required to be added to the substantive revised pay to petitioners No. 2 to 146. The instructions to the contrary are not valid. Accordingly, we allow this application and writ petition and order that "rank Pay" be granted to petitioners No. 2 to 146 from January 1, 1986, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (simple) till the date of realization of the amount. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.