T. Nandakumar Singh, J.:- By this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a regular Overseer, is praying for a direction to the respondents to revise his pay scale at Rs. 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 which is the revised pay scale for the post of Overseer as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Com­mission and accepted by the Government, i.e. the Government of India. 2. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned counsel for the respondents. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 3. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Mason on 16.04.1985 after be­ing selected in the Selection Test held in ac­cordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules; the next promotional post of Mason is Over­seer. As per the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) Group 'C' and 'D' Recruit­ment Rules, 1982 the post of Overseer is to be filled up 10% by direct recruitment and balance 90% by promotion from different posts including Mason, who are matriculate with three years regular service in the grade in GREF subject to passing of trade test. 4. After joining the post of Mason, the petitioner while in service with the permission of the respondents had passed his matricula­tion examination as well as Higher Second­ary School Leaving Certificate Examination under the Uttar Pradesh Education Board. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Durawadharampur, P. O. Mondh, District, Sant Ravidasnagar Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh. 5. The petitioner, after completing three years regular service, passed the trade test and promoted to the post of Overseer on 15.06.1990 on being selected by the DPC and since then he has been serving as regular Overseer. In the year 1996, the said GREF Group 'C' and 'D' Recruitment Rules, 1982 was partly amended under which methods of recruitment are 80% by direct recruitment and 20% by promotion; and essential technical qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Overseer is diploma in engineering. Out of 20% promotion quota, 50% of the vacancy is reserved for promotion to be filled up by promotion from amongst other Mason and Carpenters who have completed three years regular service and matriculate subject to passing of trade test. Out of 20% promotion quota, 50% of the vacancy is reserved for promotion to be filled up by promotion from amongst other Mason and Carpenters who have completed three years regular service and matriculate subject to passing of trade test. The said Recruitment Rules, 1996 is still in-force and petitioner is eligible under the said Recruitment Rules of 1996 for appointment by promotion to the post of Overseer inasmuch as he is matricu­late and already passed trade test and com­pleted qualifying service for promotion to the post of Overseer. As stated above, the petitioner had already been promoted to the post of Overseer as early as 15.06.1990 i.e. long before the en­forcement of the said Recruitment Rules of 1996. 6. The relevant portion of the said 6th Central Pay Commission i.e. para 7.39.22 is quoted hereunder: "Border Roads Organization Overseer (Civil) 7.39.22. Higher pay scale has been demanded for the post of Overseer (Civil) in Bor­der Roads Organization on the ground that the minimum qualification for the post is Diploma in Engineering. The post carries minimum di­rect recruitment qualification of Diploma in En­gineering. These minimum qualifications had been prescribed in 1996. Fifth CPC, in their Report submitted in 1997, had recommended the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- for all posts carrying minimum direct recruitment qualifications of Diploma in Engineering. This recommendation was accepted. The post should consequently have been extended the scale of Rs.5000-8000/-w.e.f. 1.1.1996. This was, however, not done. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that the post of Overseer may be upgraded and merged with their promotional post of Superin­tendent BR Grade II (present scale Rs.4500-8000. Since the Commission has recommended merger of the scales of Rs.5000-8000/-, Rs. 5500-9000/-and Rs. 6500-10500, the post will be placed in the revised Pay Band PB-2 of Rs. 8700-34800/-along with a grade pay of Rs. 4200/-. Commis­sion also advises the Government to implement this retrospectively from 1.1.1996, at least for the purpose of fixation of pay." 7. The said report of the 6th Central Pay Commission was accepted by the Government of India and it was implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006 by enacting Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 vide Gazette Notification No.G.S.R.622 (E) dated 29.08.2008. 4200/-. Commis­sion also advises the Government to implement this retrospectively from 1.1.1996, at least for the purpose of fixation of pay." 7. The said report of the 6th Central Pay Commission was accepted by the Government of India and it was implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006 by enacting Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 vide Gazette Notification No.G.S.R.622 (E) dated 29.08.2008. As Part 'C', Section II of the said Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 under the heading of Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, it is clear that pay scale of Overseer in the Bor­der Roads Organisation has been merged with the promotional posts of Superintendent BR Grade II and it has been revised to the scale of rs.5000-8000/-. 8. It is stated that after implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommen­dation by the respondents, Overseers work­ing in the Border Road Organisation (BRO) who are having diploma in engineering had been allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006; but the petitioner, although promoted to the post of Overseer way back on 15.06.1990 has not been allowed to enjoy the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till date just because he is not having diploma in engi­neering. As there were some confusion re­garding pay fixation in respect of Overseer in BRO, respondent No. 5. The Chief Engi­neer, Project Puspak, C/o 99 APO, vide letter No.12000/6th PC/78/EIC dated 22.09.2008 addressed to respondent No. 1, the Director General, Border Roads Organisation, Seema Sadak Bhavan, Ring Road, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi 110010 in­formed that according to their understand­ing Overseer BR-IIs and E&M-IIs will be placed in prerevised scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and will be placed in PB-2 with grade pay Rs.4200/-. The respondent No. 1, Di­rector General, BRO, in reply to the said letter, vide letter No. 18368/6th CPC/Corr/DGBR/108/T&C dated 3.10.2008 ad­dressed to respondent No.5, Chief Engineer HQ, Puspak Informed him that the pay of non- diploma holder Overseers, BR & EM Grade- Us may be fixed in the correspond­ing pay band/pre-revised scale. Due to this the petitioner has not been allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- as recom­mended by the 6th Central Pay Commis­sion for the post of Overseer and accepted by the Government of India. Due to this the petitioner has not been allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- as recom­mended by the 6th Central Pay Commis­sion for the post of Overseer and accepted by the Government of India. The Under Sec­retary, Border Roads Development Board, GE-I, under his letter No. BRDB/03/191/2007GE-I dated 4.5.2009 informed the Joint Director/T&C, HQ DGBR, Naraina, New Delhi that the pay of non-diploma holder Superintendent Grade-II (Civil & Electrical/Mechanical) will be fixed in the revised pay structure of Rs.5200-20200/- (PB-I) along with grade pay of Rs.2000/-and Rs.2800/- respectively w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Being aggrieved by the denial to revise his scale of pay at Rs.5000-8000/-, which is the revised pay for the post of Overseer under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 1.1.2006, petitioner filed the present writ petition. 9. The respondents filed counter affida­vit in the present writ petition and the only stand in their counter affidavit for denying the revision of pay scale of the petitioner to Rs.5000-8000/- per month on the recom­mendation of 6th Central Pay Commission, which has been accepted by the Govern­ment of India is that the 6th Central Pay Commission has not recommended higher scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/- to non-di­ploma holder Superintendent BR Grade-II and Overseer respectively w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and also that the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission for revision of pay scale of the post of Overseer at Rs.5000-8000/- per month does not vest any right to the petitioner beyond the scope of recom­mendation of 6th Central Pay Commission, which has been accepted by the Govern­ment by enacting the Rules. 10. On careful consideration of rival con­tentions of the parties in the respective plead­ings as well as submissions of their respec­tive counsel it is clear that what is to be decided in the present writ petition is, what has been recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission for the post of Overseers vide para 7.39.22 which has been quoted above; and also the true meaning of the rel­evant portion of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 which read as follows: Overseer in Border Roads Organisation (to be merged with the promotional post of Superintend­ent BR Grade-II 3200-4900 5000-8000 PB- 2 4200 73922 11. It is the basic principles of construc­tion of statute that statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to their plain meaning, no words should be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unin­telligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable and totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. Ref: Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors.: (2003) 2 sec in. It is cardinal rule of construction that no word should be construed redundant or sur­plus in interpreting the provision of a statute or rule (Ref: Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs. State of Assam & Ors.: AIR 1978 SC17). The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Santosh Shanker Acharya: (2000) 7 SCC 463 held that: "it is too well known principle of construc­tion of statute that the legislature engrafted every part of the statute for a purpose. The leg­islative intention is that every part of the stat­ute should be given effect. Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say any­thing in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be ac­cepted except for compelling reasons". It is no doubt, well settled that it is the basic principle of construction of statute that the same should be read as a whole, then chap­ter by chapter, section by section and word by word. Recourse to construction or inter­pretation of statute is necessary when there is ambiguity, obscurity, or in-consistency therein and not otherwise. An effort should be made to give effect to all parts of the statute and unless absolutely necessary, no part thereof shall be rendered superlusage or redundant. True meaning of a provision of law is to be determined on the basis of what it provides by its clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law. 12. The Apex Court had considered the maxim "Espressum facit cessare taciturn" in interpretation of statute in Union of India & Am. Vs. Tulsiram Patel, etc: (1985) 3 SCC 398 (C.B.) and held that "when there is ex­pression mentioned of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded. The ra­tio laid down by the Apex Court in Tulsiram Patel's case (supra) is followed by this Court (D/B) in Heman Bihari Singh Vs. State of Manipur: (2004) 1 GLT1. 13. Vs. Tulsiram Patel, etc: (1985) 3 SCC 398 (C.B.) and held that "when there is ex­pression mentioned of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded. The ra­tio laid down by the Apex Court in Tulsiram Patel's case (supra) is followed by this Court (D/B) in Heman Bihari Singh Vs. State of Manipur: (2004) 1 GLT1. 13. It is well settled that when the legisla­ture has spoken, judge cannot afford to be wiser. Ref: Shri Mandir Sita Ramji Vs. Governor of Delhi & Ors.: AIR 1974 SC 1868 . While interpreting the statute or/rules the Court must proceed on the assumption that legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The Court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The Court would not RO to its aid to correct the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act. Para 13 of the SCC in Dadi Jagannadham Vs. Jammulu Ramulu & Ors.: (2001) 7 SCC read as follows: "13. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. The settled principles of interpretation are that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The Court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. Undoubtedly if there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The Court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The Court cannot add the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are there." 14. The Court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The Court cannot add the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are there." 14. Keeping in view of the above deci­sions of the Apex Court regarding construction or/interpretation of statute/rules and ac­cepted principles of interpretation of statute or/rules this Court has given careful and anx­ious consideration of mind for interpretation of the said para 7.39.22 of the report of the 6th Central Pay Commission, which has been accepted by the Government of India. On bare perusal of the said para 7.39.22 of the report, it is crystal clear that the recommen­dation of the revision of pay at Rs.5000-8000/- is for the post of Overseer, for which minimum qualification for direct recruitment is diploma w.e.f. 1.1.1996; and that the rec­ommendation of the revision of pay is not with reference to the incumbents for the post of Overseer, for which minimum qualification for direct recruitment is diploma holder. 15. As stated above, admittedly in the present case, under the existing Recruitment Rules, 1996 the post of Overseer is to be filled up 80% by direct recruitment and mini­mum qualification for direct recruitment is diploma in engineering and remaining 20% are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Mason and Carpenters who are matricu­late and passed the trade test examination with three years regular service. For the sake of repetition it is reiterated that on bare perusal of para 7.39.22 of the 6th Central Pay Com­mission, it is clear that the Commission rec­ommended that the post of Overseer may be upgraded and merged with their promotional posts of Superintendent BR-II (present scale of Rs.4500-7000/-) and combined cadre extending the scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and the post will be placed in the revised Pay Band PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800/- along with a grade pay of rs.4200/-. In nowhere of the said recommendation, i.e. para 7.39.22 of the 6th Central Pay Com­mission it is mentioned that promotee of the post of Overseer having no qualification of diploma in engineering shall not be allowed to enjoy the revised pay scale i.e. Rs.5000-8000/- for the post of Overseer, for which minimum qualification for direct recruitment is diploma holder. 16. In nowhere of the said recommendation, i.e. para 7.39.22 of the 6th Central Pay Com­mission it is mentioned that promotee of the post of Overseer having no qualification of diploma in engineering shall not be allowed to enjoy the revised pay scale i.e. Rs.5000-8000/- for the post of Overseer, for which minimum qualification for direct recruitment is diploma holder. 16. One should not mix up with the quali­fication of diploma mentioned in the said para 7.39.22 of the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission while revising the pay scale of the incumbents of the post of Overseer inasmuch as minimum qualification of diploma mentioned in the said para is only for qualifying the post of Overseer. As dis­cussed above, the authority cannot add words to the said para or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading of the said para produces an intelligible result. According to the maxim "Espressum facit cessare taciturn" which has been discussed above, when there is an expression mentioned of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded. Therefore, the irresistible con­clusion in the present case is that the revision of pay scale of the incumbent of the post of Overseer by interpreting the said para 7.39.22 of the recommendation as if it referred to the incumbents and not to the post, i.e. Over­seer, is not at all acceptable inasmuch as the respondents have misunderstood the prin­ciples of interpretation of statute and the maxim "Espressum facit cessare taciturn" while understanding the said para 7.39.22 of the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission. 17. The Apex Court in K. T. Veerappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka: (2006) 9 SCC 406 held that Court should interfere with ad­ministrative decision pertaining to pay fixa­tion and pay parity when they find such a de­cision to be unreasonable, unjust and preju­dicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factor. Para 13 of SCC (K.T. Veerappa) is quoted be­low: "13. He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the execu­tive and financial capacity of the Govt. and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this conten­tion, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this conten­tion, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there by any to the prin­ciples as settled in State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. that fixa­tion of pay and determination of parity in du­ties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative deci­sion in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the Courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertain­ing to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant fac­tors." 18. The Apex Court in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. State Tax Officers Grade II Assn.: (2003) 6 SCC 250 held that there cannot be discrimination at the time of revi­sion of pay on the recommendation of the Commission, which had been accepted by the Government, hi that case, the judicial review was not sought against the report of the rec­ommendation of the Pay Commission; what the respondent/association had questioned is implementation of the resolution of the Gov­ernment based on the report of the recom­mendation of the Pay Commission. 19. The Apex Court in State of Mizoram & Anr. Vs. Mizoram Engineer Assn: (2004) 6 SCC 218 held that there cannot be dis­crimination at the time of revision of pay on the recommendation of the Pay Commission. In that case the recommendation of the Pay Commission was accepted by the Govern­ment. Even after such acceptance, the State Government had discriminated in revising the pay scale in respect of Chief Engineer/Addi­tional Chief Engineer of the State Engineering Department merely because of absence of Recruitment Rules for the service and also fi­nancial burden. Paras 6 and 7 of the SCC in Mizoram Engineer Assn's case (supra) are quoted hereunder: "6. Even after such acceptance, the State Government had discriminated in revising the pay scale in respect of Chief Engineer/Addi­tional Chief Engineer of the State Engineering Department merely because of absence of Recruitment Rules for the service and also fi­nancial burden. Paras 6 and 7 of the SCC in Mizoram Engineer Assn's case (supra) are quoted hereunder: "6. Great stress was laid on the fact that Engineering Service in the State was not an or­ganized service and therefore, it did not have categorization by way of entrance-level and senior-level posts and for that reasons the higher scale of Rs.5900-6700/- which was ad­missible for senior level posts could not be given in the Engineering Service as an unorganized service in the State is absence of recruitment rules for the service. Who is responsible for not framing the recruitment rules? Are the mem­bers of the Engineering Service responsible for it? The answer is clearly "No". For failure of the State Government to frame recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organized service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the reason of ab­sence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in orga­nized and unorganized service so far as Government service is concerned. In Government service such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought to be conveyed by use of the words "organized service" and "unorganized service." Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf. The argument is wholly misconceived. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that if the scale of Rs.5900-6700/- is to be allowed to the Chief Engineers, the State Government will have to allow the same scale to other heeds of departments in the service of the State Government which will be a heavy burden on the financial resources of the State and for that reason we should restrict the scale for post of Chief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer to Rs.4500-5700/- and Rs.4100-5300/-respectively. In our view this is hardly any ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court. It has been found that the claim of the respondents is fully justified by the facts on record. In our view this is hardly any ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court. It has been found that the claim of the respondents is fully justified by the facts on record. The Central Government as well as the State Government accepted the recommenda­tions of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and the scales being allowed to the members of the respondent Association are based on those recommendations." 20. In Roshan Deen Vs. Preet Lal: (2002) 1 SCC 100 the Apex Court observed that purpose of power conferred in High Court Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitu­tion of India is to advance justice, not to thwart it. Even when justice is the by-product of an erroneous interpretation of law, High Court ought not to wipe out such injustice in the name of correcting the error of law. Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corpn. Vs. United Labour Union & Ors.: 1997 (2) Supreme 165 held that the founding fathers placed no limitation or fetters on the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution except self imposed limitation. The arm of the Court is long enough to reach injustice whenever it is found. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar: (1995) 4 SCC 683 , the Apex Court held that the power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if it is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable admits of no controversy. 21. It is well settled law that when Execu­tive Instruction conflicts with the statutory provision the latter will prevail, hi the absence of any conflict both will prevail. Ref: (2004) 2 SCC 297 . The Apex Court in S. K. Abdul Rashid & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kash­mir & Ors.: (2008) 1 SCC 722 (in para 15 of the SCC) held that: "15. No executive order could be issued in derogation of the statutory rules far less a leg­islative Act. Ref: (2004) 2 SCC 297 . The Apex Court in S. K. Abdul Rashid & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kash­mir & Ors.: (2008) 1 SCC 722 (in para 15 of the SCC) held that: "15. No executive order could be issued in derogation of the statutory rules far less a leg­islative Act. The Rules being statutory in na­ture and having been framed under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants' (Removal of Doubts and Declaration of Rights) Ordinance, 1956 have statutory force, the executive order in question was required to be issued in consonance with and not in derogation thereof." In the present case the executive instruc­tion/decision vide the impugned letters dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure No.6), 11.05.2009 (Annexure No. 12) and 4.5.2009 (Annexure No. 13) which are in derogation of the Cen­tral Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2006 for the post of Overseer and also the recom­mendation in para 7.39.22 of the 6th Central Pay Commission, which has been approved by the Central Government by necessary en­actment of the Rules i.e. the said Rule, are illegal and not acceptable under the law. 22. For the foregoing reasons and discus­sions, this Court has no alternative except to direct the respondents, in the given case, to revise the pay scale of the petitioner, who is working as regular Overseer at the scale of Rs.5000-8000/- per month with effect from the date the Overseers with Diploma in Civil Engineering enjoyed the revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- per month as per the rec­ommendation of the 6th Central Pay Com­mission, which has been accepted by the Government of India; and also pay the arrear pay and allowances within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment and or­der. The corollary result would be that the said impugned letters or/decisions of the re­spondents, dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure No.6), letter dated 11.05.2009 (Annexure No. 12) along with letter dated 4.5.2009 (Annexure No. 13) mentioned above for denying the revision of pay scale of the petitioner at Rs.5000-8000/- per month only because the petitioner is not diploma holder are hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed, accordingly. Parties are to bear their own costs.