JUDGMENT : 1. The order of rejection dated 22.10.2012 issued by the second respondent in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner for revision of his salary on par with his junior is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Grade II Constable on 12.07.1977 and promoted to the post of Grade I Constable on 12.07.1992 and he was further promoted as Head Constable on 12.07.1992. The writ petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was aged about 58 years and now he would have attained the age of superannuation. 3. The claim of the writ petitioner is that one Mr.Easwaran and Mr. Padmaraj (No.229) who were working as Grade II Category III Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police Establishment and who were initially recruited to the said category in the year 1981 and was later on transferred to Reserve Police as Grade II Police Constable, Category II after getting their option in the year 1993. Those persons were later on promoted as Grade I Constable in the year 1998 and became Head Constable in the year 2000. They were transferred from Special Police Establishment and promoted as Head Constable, were fixed the basic pay of Rs.5800/- per month. Whereas the scale of pay of the writ petitioner was fixed in the basic pay of Rs.4800/- per month. Thus, the writ petitioner claims that his pay alone was reduced and therefore, his pay should be stepped up on par with their juniors, namely, Eswaran and Padmaraj, so also in the case of Mr.Radhakrishnan. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the said Mr.Radhakrishnan also filed writ petition, which was allowed and against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State preferred writ appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.398 and 399 of 2013. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court considered these aspects and passed an order on 02.07.2013 and the relevant paragraphs Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Judgment are extracted hereunder:- 6. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court considered these aspects and passed an order on 02.07.2013 and the relevant paragraphs Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Judgment are extracted hereunder:- 6. It is not in dispute that Eswaran and 34 others were members of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service and as per their option, they were transferred to Armed Reserve as Grade II Police Constables in the year 1993 and prior to their transfer, got promotion to higher ranks in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion as Naik and Havildar and consequently, they were in receipt of higher emoluments. Eswaran and others, on transfer to Armed Reserve Grade II Police Constables, were placed before the writ petitioners and their emoluments were less than the pay received by them while they were in Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalian and that in order to give them pay protection, their scale of pay was fixed higher. The Accountant General, Tamil Nadu has objected to the same and it was also accepted by the Government which in turn ordered recovery of excess amount paid to Eswaran and others and the said proceedings were the subject matter of challenge in O.A.No.10317/1997 etc., batch before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide common order dated 06.04.2004, held that Eswaran and others have consented for serving in the lower cadre because they have been assured of pay protection and they did not anticipate in reduction in their emoluments and if they have been informed in advance about the pay reduction, they would not have opted for transfer at all. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the orders of recovery passed against them are not just and equitable and accordingly, set aside the proceedings ordering recovery and the said common order was also put to challenge before this Court, which also ordered for implementation of the above said common order passed by the Tribunal. 7. The Home (Pol.IX) Department passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.637, dated 03.08.2009 and in paras 6 and 7 it has been stated as follows:- “6. 7. The Home (Pol.IX) Department passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.637, dated 03.08.2009 and in paras 6 and 7 it has been stated as follows:- “6. The Government have examined the proposal of Director General of Police in detail to implement the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in various Original Applications and the orders of the High Court, Chennai in various writ petitions and to cancel the instructions issued in Government letter second and third read above and to approve the directions issued by the Director General of Police in the memo first read above. Accordingly, the Government Order that the instruction issued in Government letter second and third read above be cancelled. The Government also order that the directions issued in the memo first read above to fix the pay of such police personnel at the appropriate place taking into account the pay last drawn in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion and the difference as personnel pay to give pay protection to such police personnel transferred to District Armed Reserve from Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalions, he approved as a special case. 7. The Director General of Police, Chennai is requested to take action accordingly. The Director General of Police, Chennai is also requested to instruct all the Unit officer that Police Constable of Tamil Nadu Special Police coming to the local agreeing to serve in a lower category of Grade II Police Constables in the District Armed Reserve shall be paid only a salary be fitting the lower ranking in future.” 8. Ruling 2 of FR-22B and Ruling 2 of FR-27 stipulate that both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre, so also in the case of pay in the lower and higher post. In the case on hand, as pointed out in the earlier paragraphs, Eswaran and others became Armed Reserve Grade II Police Constables on their request and prior to such transfer, they were promoted as Naik and Havildar and they were in receipt of higher emoluments and on transfer, it was found that the emoluments received by them are lower than the amount received by them as members of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion and in order to give pay protection, their scale of pay were stepped up. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that Eswaran and others continue to be junior to the writ petitioners in the seniority list. 9. Similar issue arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Others vs. O.P. Saxena [ (1997)6 SCC 360 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has taken into consideration similar provisions and held that when the feeder post of respondents therein and that of the other respondents were different, the applicability of the principle of stepping up cannot apply. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and others vs. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others, after taking into consideration the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held that junior drawing more pay than the Senior will not constitute an anomaly; nor is it a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1). 11. The Government has also decided for implementation of the common order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.10317/1997 batch dated 06.04.2004 and accordingly passed G.O.Ms.No.637, Home (Pol.IX) Department, dated 03.08.2009 and in para 7 of the said Government order making it very clear that in future, it should be indicated to the persons who are opting for transfer that they shall be paid salary be fitting the lower ranking persons. 12. This Court, in the light of the reasons assigned above, is of the considered view that the impugned common order allowing the writ petitions is unsustainable both on law and on facts and hence, it is liable to be interfer. 13. In the result, both these writ appeals are allowed and the common order dated 13.09.2010 made in W.P.Nos.9827 and 9528 of 2006 is set aside. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 5. In view of the Judgment of the Honourable Division Bench, in the similar issue, no further consideration is required in respect of the grounds raised in the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.