Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 23.01.2008 by which the scale of pay of the petitioner has been reduced from Rs.9205/- to Rs.8875/- and it has been directed to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner pursuant to fixation of his pay at Rs.9205/-. A prayer seeking quashing of letter no. 87 dated 09.07.2008 has also been made. 2. The brief fact of the case is that, the petitioner joined as correspondence clerk on 24.08.1977 and he passed departmental examination for promotion to the post of head clerk on 20.12.1987 and therefore, he was granted three annual increments in view of the standing orders of the Bihar State Electricity Board. Just before his retirement the petitioner was promoted to the post of head clerk by office order no.841 dated 25.07.2006 and he was granted increment from 24.08.2006. However, by letter dated 23.01.2008 the salary of the petitioner in the promoted post was fixed at Rs.8875/- w.e.f 27.09.2006, although he was receiving salary of Rs.9040/- at the time when he was promoted to the post of head clerk and from 24.08.2006 he was granted an increment and his salary was fixed at Rs.9205. The petitioner in view of the above, has sought pay protection. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Jharkhand State Electricity Board in which it has been admitted that the petitioner who retired from service on 29.02.2008 had passed departmental examination on 20.12.1987 and accordingly he was granted three advance increments. During this period he got selection grade scale of pay and super selection grade scale of pay also. However, in view of the standing order of the Board which says that in case of those workman who were receiving advance increment for passing the departmental examination, for fixation of pay on promotion to next higher post, the advance increments shall not be taken into account, and therefore, the petitioners' scale of pay was fixed at Rs.8875/- 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on records. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for his pay protection. The action of the respondents in fixing the pay of the petitioner at a lower scale is contrary to Rule 78 (a)(i) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on records. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for his pay protection. The action of the respondents in fixing the pay of the petitioner at a lower scale is contrary to Rule 78 (a)(i) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the circular/standing order of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board is given effect to, it would result in an anomalous situation besides violating the right of pay protection of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6120/1994 titled “Surendra Kumar versus the Bihar State Electricity Board and Others” wherein in an identical situation the employee was granted pay protection. 5. It is an admitted position that before the petitioner was promoted to the post of head clerk, he was getting scale of Rs.9040/- and from 24.08.2006 he was given an increment and he was getting scale of Rs.9205/-. After his promotion his pay was fixed at Rs.8875/- without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner. It is also admitted by the parties that the provisions of Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code applies to Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Rule 78(a) (i) of Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code reads as follows; “Rule-78(a)(i) when appointment to the new post involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance (as interpreted for the purposes of Rule 89) than those attached to such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time scale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post; (ii) When appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption, he will draw as initial pay the stag of the time scale which is equal to his substantive pay in respect of the old post, or, if there is no such stage, the stage next below that pay, plus personal pay equal to the difference and in either case will continue to draw that pay until such time as he would have received an increment in the time-scale of the old post or for period after which an increment is earned in the time-scale of new post, whichever is less. But if the minimum pay of the timescale of the new post is higher than his substantive pay in respect of the old post, he will draw that minimum as initial pay.” 6. It is clear from the aforesaid rules that the pay of the petitioner on promotion to the higher post is to be fixed at the pay the petitioner was last receiving as his substantive pay in the lower post. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the circular/standing order of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board is given effect to, the statutory Rule 78(a) (i) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code would become redundant besides brining an anomalous situation. 7. In the result, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. 8. Writ petition is allowed. 9. There shall however, be no order as to costs.