JUDGMENT : Thisappeal is by the defendant. ThisCourt vide order dated 10-8-2011 had admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : - "(1)Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in granting decree in favour of plaintiff as prayed in the civil suit determininghis right to get two advance increments even on fixation of pay in subsequentpay revisions ? (2)Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified to decide the appeal on theissues not framed by the Trial Court without giving an opportunity to leadevidence and the finding recorded by it is not perverse?" 2.The facts, giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that therespondent was appointed on the post of Associate Professor in the appellantinstitute vide order dated 16-12-1985 in the pay-scale of Rs .1500-2000. The respondent prior to joining service in the appellant institutewas working on the post of reader in Dibrugarh University and was getting the salary of Rs . 1620/- per month.The respondent submitted a representation and sought the benefit of grant oftwo advance increments so as to protect his pay. The appellant institute videorder dated 9-1-1986 sanctioned two advance increments in the then existingpay-scale of the Associate Professor in order to protect the basic salary ofthe respondent of Rs . 1620/- per month. Therespondent joined the service in the appellant institute w.e.f . 1-2-1986 . 3.The pay-scale of the faculty members of the appellant institute was decided tobe revised in terms of revised pay structure scheme as approved by the Ministryof Forest and Environment, Government of India. Accordingly, vide order dated 15-1-1992 options were invited fromthe faculty members for adopting the revised pay-scale, which was made to beeffective from 1-1-1986 . Allthe faculty members including the respondent opted for revised pay-scale in theprescribed form in terms of revised pay structure scheme. The existing payscale of Rs . 1500/-2000 of the post of Associate Professorwas revised to Rs . 4,000-6,300/-. The pay ofrespondent was fixed at Rs . 4,500/- per month whichwas higher to the pay which he was getting prior to revision, i.e., Rs . 3698/-. The existing payscale of Rs . 1500/-2000 of the post of Associate Professorwas revised to Rs . 4,000-6,300/-. The pay ofrespondent was fixed at Rs . 4,500/- per month whichwas higher to the pay which he was getting prior to revision, i.e., Rs . 3698/-. However, the respondent claimed the benefit oftwo advance increments in the revised pay-scale on the ground that it was madeeffective with effect from 1-1-1986 .The representation submitted by the respondent for grant of two advanceincrements in the revised pay scale was rejected by the Competent Authority.The respondent thereupon filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration andpermanent injunction as well as for grant of arrears of salary. 4.The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21-4-1997 dismissed the suit preferred by the respondent.The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 27-8-1998 reversed thedecree of the Trial Court and allowed the claim of the respondent for grant oftwo advance increments as well as arrears of salary. The Appellate Court heldthat vide order 9-1-1986 twoadvance increments were sanctioned to the respondent, therefore, the respondentis entitled to two advance increment in the revisedpay-scale. It was further held that the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs . 24,000/- for a period from 1-2-1986 to 30-2-1992 on account of arrears of salary. Accordingly, the decree passed by the TrialCourt was set aside and the suit of the respondent plaintiff was decreed. 5.Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the conditions of employmentcannot be created by the Court by its order. The order passed by the AppellateCourt is palpably erroneous. The respondent was not entitled to the benefit oftwo increments in the revised pay scale. The Appellate Court ought to haveappreciated that the benefit of two advance increments was granted to therespondent only to protect his basic salary. It was further submitted that fromthe order sanctioning two advance increments to the respondent it could not beinferred that two advance increments are to be granted on pay revision underthe revised pay structure scheme. The pay of respondent was fixed at Rs . 4,500/- per month which was higher than the pay whichhe was getting prior to revision, i.e., Rs . 3,698/-and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to two advance increments. The pay of respondent was fixed at Rs . 4,500/- per month which was higher than the pay whichhe was getting prior to revision, i.e., Rs . 3,698/-and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to two advance increments. It isfurther submitted that the judgment passed by the Appellate Court is contraryto the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of M.P. andothers Vs. R.K. Chaturvedi and another, 2006(2)M.P.H.T. 281 (FB) = 2006 (2) MPLJ 374 . In support of his contentions learnedCounsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of theSupreme Court in M. Raja Vs. CEERI Education Society, Pilani and another, (2006) 12 SCC 636 . 6.On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted thatincrements and revision of pay scale are two distinct concepts in service law.It is submitted that increment is an increase or addition on a fixed scalewhereas in case of revision, the pay scale is revised, which may incidentallyresult into increment. It is further submitted that the judgment and decreepassed by the Appellate Court is perfectly just and legal and does not call forinterference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Codeof Civil Procedure. In support of her submissions, learned Senior Counsel hasplaced reliance on the decision in State of Kerala Vs. P. V. Neelakandan Nair , AIR 2006 SC 3066. 7.I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties andhave perused the record. The respondent was appointed on the post of AssociateProfessor in the appellant institute vide order dated 16-12-1985 in the pay scale of Rs . 1500-2000. Thereafter the respondent submitted therepresentation on 24-12-1985 ,in which it was stated that two advance increments be granted to the petitioner and his basic pay be fixed at Rs .1620/- in the cadre of Associate Professor. "Thereupon vide order dated 9-1-1986 , the respondent was informedthat two advance increments shall be sanctioned fixing his salary at Rs . 1620/-. Thereafter the petitioner opted for revision ofpay under the revised pay structure scheme. From perusal of pay statement ofthe respondent it is apparent that increments have been added to his salary. "Thereupon vide order dated 9-1-1986 , the respondent was informedthat two advance increments shall be sanctioned fixing his salary at Rs . 1620/-. Thereafter the petitioner opted for revision ofpay under the revised pay structure scheme. From perusal of pay statement ofthe respondent it is apparent that increments have been added to his salary. Itis also relevant to mention here that the benefit of two advance increments inthe revised pay was not the subject matter of the contract between the parties.Therefore, even though the respondent had acquired the status under theStatutory Rules, after his pay was revised on his own option under the revisedpay structure scheme, he cannot claim grant of two advance increments. Underthe aforesaid scheme, salary of the respondent was fixed at Rs .4,500/- which was higher than the salary which he was drawing prior to fixationunder the fixation of pay structure scheme. The benefit of two advanceincrements was granted to the respondent for a limited purpose, i.e., with aview to extend the benefit of pay protection. 8.For the aforementioned reasons, the first substantial question of law isanswered in the negative and in favour of theappellant. In order to elucidate the controversy involved in the case, theAppellate Court had formulated the issue. It is not the case of the appellantthat the appellant wanted to adduce any additional evidence in this regard.Accordingly, it is held that second substantial question of law in fact doesnot arise for consideration in this appeal. 9.Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is setaside and that of the Trial Court is restored. In the result, the appealsucceeds and is hereby allowed.