JUDGMENT : Viju Abraham, J. Since these original petitions are filed challenging common order dated 02.03.2015 in O.A.Nos.1852 of 2014 and 1963 of 2013 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, they are heard and disposed of together. 2. O.P(KAT) No. 245 of 2015 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in O.A.No.1852 of 2014 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and the respondents herein are the applicants therein. The applicants in the O.A. are ex-servicemen who rejoined in Sainik Welfare Department as Welfare Organisers. Applicants 1 to 5 joined the department on 01.11.2004, 4.11.2004, 17.12.2004, 18.06.2005 and 18.05.2006 respectively. Other than ministerial staff there are mainly 4 posts in the department. a. Director b. Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer. c. Personal Assistant and Manager/Assistant Secretary/Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Officer d. Welfare Organiser. Of the said posts, the first three posts belong to the Kerala General Service whereas the post of Welfare Organiser belongs to the Kerala General Subordinate Service. As per the Kerala General Subordinate Service Rules, G.O(Ms) No.390/77/GAD dated 23.11.1977, the post of Welfare Organiser shall constitute a separate class in the Kerala General Subordinate Service. As per Annexure-A1 Government Order, the appointment to the post of Personal Assistant and Manager Directorate of Zanik Welfare/Assistant Secretary, Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, now redesignated as Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer is by transfer from the post of Junior Superintendent or in their absence by transfer from the post of Head Clerk/Welfare Organiser. Due to stagnation in the post, all the applicants were granted the first Time Bound Higher Grade on completion of 8 years as per Annexure-A2 order. The grievance raised by the applicants is regarding the sanctioning of their higher grade in a scale lesser than the scale they are entitled to. The applicants are on the scale of Rs.13900-24040 and they were sanctioned grade on the next higher scale of Rs.14620-25280 instead of the scale of pay of Rs.18740-33680. To the representation submitted by the applicants, the 2nd respondent by Annexure-A3 letter informed that the Welfare Organisers who have completed 8 years of service are entitled for scale of pay of Rs.14620-25280 as per Table I of Annexure-III to Annexure-A4, G.O(P) No.85/2011/Fin dated 26.02.2011. Annexure-A3 letter was also issued based on para 3 of Annexure-A5 Circular No.46/2008/Fin dated 08.08.2008. To the representation submitted by the applicants, the 2nd respondent by Annexure-A3 letter informed that the Welfare Organisers who have completed 8 years of service are entitled for scale of pay of Rs.14620-25280 as per Table I of Annexure-III to Annexure-A4, G.O(P) No.85/2011/Fin dated 26.02.2011. Annexure-A3 letter was also issued based on para 3 of Annexure-A5 Circular No.46/2008/Fin dated 08.08.2008. The stand taken in Annexure-A3 is that the method of appointment of Welfare Organisers to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer is by way of ‘by transfer’ method and therefore Welfare Organisers who completed 8 years of qualifying service are eligible only for the scale of pay of Rs.14620-25280 as provided in Table I of Annexure-A4 Pay Revision Order. The stand of the applicants is that a similar issue was considered by this Court by AnnexureA6 judgment and held that the petitioner therein is entitled to grade promotion in the scale of Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer. AnnexureA6 judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in Annexure-A7 judgment in W.A. No.1147 of 1998. It is aggrieved by the denial of the scale of pay of Rs.18740-33680 as the first Time Bound Higher Grade to the applicant that the present OA was filed. Similar contentions were raised in the connected case, O.A. No. 1963 of 2013 which was posted along with O.A.No.1852 of 2014. 3. O.A.No.1852 of 2014 was heard along with O.A.No.1963 of 2013 (against which O.P(KAT) No.261 of 2015 is filed) and by Ext.P3 common order dated 03.02.2015, the Tribunal allowed both the O.As directing the respondents therein to issue revised orders granting the scale of pay of Rs.18740-33680 as First Time Bound Higher Grade to the applicants therein. The Tribunal while issuing Ext P3 common order essentially relied on Annexure-A6 (judgment dated 27.02.1998 in O.P.No.493 of 1995) and Annexure-A7 (judgment dated 07.01.2022 in W.A.No.1147 of 1998) to grant relief to the applicants therein. It is aggrieved by Ext.P3 common order that the above two O.P(KAT)s were filed. Similar contentions were raised in O.P(KAT) No.261 of 2015 also. 4. When the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench, they expressed doubt regarding the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1147 of 1998 (Annexure-A7) which was relied on by the Tribunal to grant relief to the applicant therein. Thereupon, the matter has been placed before the Full Bench for consideration. 5. 4. When the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench, they expressed doubt regarding the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1147 of 1998 (Annexure-A7) which was relied on by the Tribunal to grant relief to the applicant therein. Thereupon, the matter has been placed before the Full Bench for consideration. 5. Heard the Learned Government Pleader, Shri. P.G. Pramod appearing for the petitioners and also Senior Counsel, Shri. George Poonthotam assisted by Shri. A.L. Navneeth Krishnan appearing for the party respondents. 6. Before going into the rival contentions on both sides it is profitable to analyse the scope of the reference order dated 15.11.2022. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the order of reference read as follows : “5. Before us, it is the submission of Sri. Bijoy Chandran, the learned Government Pleader that the aforesaid judgments of this Court that have been relied upon by the Tribunal in the impugned orders do not take note of the specific provisions in the Special Rules as also the specific provisions in the Government Order extending the pay revision benefits to the applicants. It is in particular, pointed out that the Scheme of Time Bound Higher Grade appended to the pay revision order clearly mandated in Clause 6 extracted above that the benefit of the higher scale of pay applicable to the promotion post, would be granted only in those cases where there was a promotion post in respect of the entry post, carrying a higher scale of pay than the Time Bound Higher Grade scale proposed for the entry post. In that event, the qualified incumbents in the entry post would be granted the scale of pay of the promotion post in the direct line of promotion as Time Bound Higher Grade. It is contended that the requirement of having a promotion post in the direct line of promotion, from the entry post that was held by the applicants, was a necessary pre-condition for the applicants to claim the scale of pay applicable to the promotion post as their Time Bound Higher Grade benefit. It is contended that the requirement of having a promotion post in the direct line of promotion, from the entry post that was held by the applicants, was a necessary pre-condition for the applicants to claim the scale of pay applicable to the promotion post as their Time Bound Higher Grade benefit. In the instant case it is pointed out that as per the Special Rules in force, the applicant could aspire for the higher post of Assistant Secretary only through an appointment by transfer and that too only in the absence of Junior Superintendents who were the preferred category of candidates for by transfer appointment as Assistant Secretary. The learned Government Pleader also argues that the decisions relied on by the Tribunal were rendered without properly analysing the relevant Special Rules, Pay Revision Orders and Circulars in respect of the subject matter, and therefore the said decisions have to be treated as per incuriam. It is also argued that those decisions were rendered on the basis that a person is entitled for higher grade on account of stagnation in a post, irrespective of whether the next appointment is by way of promotion or by method of transfer. Thus, according to the learned Government Pleader, Annexures A7 and A8 judgments were rendered without a proper consideration of the definition of promotion and appointment by transfer contained in KS & SSR. 6. While we do find force in the submissions of the learned Government Pleader with specific reference to the Special Rules read with clauses in the pay revision order, we are confronted with the judgments of this Court that seems to strike a different chord. On a perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench in WA No.1147 of 1998, we find that the view taken therein is that the word 'promotion' in the pay revision order has to be taken as merely referring to an 'appointment' to the post and that the pay scale applicable to the higher post can be granted as the Time Bound Higher Grade benefit if the method of appointment to the higher post is either by promotion or by transfer. In taking such a view the Division Bench reasoned that a strict interpretation of the pay revision order, by confining the benefit of higher pay scales only to cases where promotion was specified as a method of appointment to the higher post, would defeat the object of the pay revision order by ignoring the aspect of stagnation of an employee in the entry post. 7. With utmost respect to the findings of the Division Bench, we find ourselves unable to accept the line of reasoning adopted by it. It seems to us that the court did not consider the fact that the aspect of stagnation had already been considered by the Government while offering a higher scale of pay to the stagnating employees. What was denied to them was only the still higher scale of pay applicable to the higher post if that was in the direct line of promotion to the entry post held by the employees in question. In otherwords, merely because the recruitment rules did not provide for career progression through promotion, it did not follow that the employees did not get any stagnation benefit. They did get a higher pay scale albeit not to the extent envisaged for the higher post. 8. Pay revision orders effectively give expression to a policy decision of the Government that is taken after considering numerous factors, including the views of economic experts. It is for that reason that courts are usually reluctant to interfere with matters of pay fixation and revision for to do so would require the courts to dwelve into areas beyond their functional competence. Whatever may have been the reason that weighed with the Government to confine the benefit of the pay scale in the higher post to only such employees in the entry post for whom the higher post was one in the direct line of promotion, it was not open to the court to modify the scheme in the pay revision order, more so when the pay revision order itself does not appear to have been challenged in the said case. We are inclined to think that in view of the clear provisions of the Pay Revision order, the pay scales applicable to the higher post could have been extended to the applicants before us towards Time Bound Higher Grade only if the recruitment rules in force provided for a recruitment by promotion to the said post. Admittedly, the Special Rules in the instant cases, do not provide for such recruitment by promotion.” 7. The observation made in the reference order could be summarised as follows : a. Annexures 6 and 7 judgments did not take note of the specific provisions in the Special Rules as well as the specific provisions in the Government Order extending the pay revision benefits to the applicants. b. In Annexure 6 and 7 judgments, the Court did not consider the fact that the Government had already considered the aspect of stagnation while offering a higher scale of pay to stagnating employees. c. Pay Revision Orders effectively give expression to a policy decision of the Government that is taken after considering numerous factors including views of economic experts, and it is not open to the Court to modify the scheme in the Pay Revision Order. 8. In the common order impugned in these original petitions, the Tribunal essentially relied on Annexure-A6 (judgment dated 27.02.1998 in O.P.No.493 of 1995) and Annexure-A7 (judgment dated 07.01.2022 in W.A.No.1147 of 1998) and granted relief to the applicants therein. The operative portion of Annexure-A6 judgment reads as follows : “.............The Special Rules relating to the Personal Assistant and Manager/Assistant Secretary prescribe the method of recruitment to the above post. It is by transfer from the post of Junior Superintendent or in their absence by transfer from the post of Head Clerk/Welfare Organiser. The clause quoted above of the pay revision order says that if there is a promotion post in respect of the entry category coming under pay range from Rs.775-1065 to 1640-2900 and its scale of pay is higher than the time bound grade proposed, then the qualified incumbent will be given the scale of pay of the promotion post in the direct line of promotion as time bound higher grade. The argument of the respondents seems to be that the promotion post mentioned in the above clause must be a post to which the method of appointment is by promotion and not by appointment by transfer. The argument of the respondents seems to be that the promotion post mentioned in the above clause must be a post to which the method of appointment is by promotion and not by appointment by transfer. Viewed technically, the above argument is quite attractive. But it must be remembered that the idea of granting time bound higher grade promotion is to neutralise the effect of stagnation. If a person is remaining in the entry cadre for 10 years without getting any promotion, then he is entitled to get the higher grade applicable to the post of the next promotion post. What the Government really means is that it must be the grade of a post to which the incumbent is to be promoted. There the word ‘promotion’ can only mean an appointment to the post. The method of appointment can either be by promotion or by transfer. But that is immaterial. As indicated earlier, the real question is whether there is stagnation or not. 2. There is another legal obstacle in restricting the meaning of promotion in the above clause. If such an interpretation is given, then there will be clear discrimination. The Special Rules may prescribe the methods for filling up a post which may consist of promotion and appointment by transfer. A person who is included in a feeder category and who is entitled to get promotion will get a time bound higher grade. At the same time, a person in another feeder category who can aspire to be appointed only by the method of transfer will be denied the above benefit. This should be frowned upon as opposed to be Constitutional mandate in Articles 14 and 16. Such an interpretation is always to be avoided.” By Annexure-A7 judgment, the findings in Annexure-A6 have been upheld, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : “The Special Rules relating to the Personal Assistant and Manager/Assistant Secretary prescribe the method of recruitment to the above mentioned post. Method of recruitment is by transfer from the post of Junior Superintendent or in their absence by transfer from the post of Head Clerk/Welfare Organiser. It was contended by the learned Government Pleader that promotion post mentioned hereinbefore must be post to which the method of appointment on promotion and not appointment by transfer. We are of the view argument raised by the learned Government Pleader will lead to disastrous consequence. It was contended by the learned Government Pleader that promotion post mentioned hereinbefore must be post to which the method of appointment on promotion and not appointment by transfer. We are of the view argument raised by the learned Government Pleader will lead to disastrous consequence. We may indicate at the outset the idea of granting time bound higher grade promotion is to neutralise the effect of stagnation. If a person is remaining in the entry cadre for 10 years without getting any promotion, then he is entitled to get the higher grade applicable to the post of the next promotion post. The word ‘promotion’ can only mean an appointment to the post. The method of appointment can either be by promotion or by transfer. The question to be decided is whether there is stagnation in the post whether appointment by promotion or transfer is of no consequence. We are of the view it is the correct interpretation. Any contrary interpretation would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We therefore hold that the learned single Judge has rightly held that Exts.P5 and P6 are discriminatory and cannot stand in the eye of law. We concur with the view of the learned single Judge and dismiss the appeal” 9. The learned single Judge in Annexure-A6 judgment entered a finding that the idea of granting Time Bound Higher Grade promotion is to neutralize the effect of stagnation and that if a person remains in the entry cadre for 10 years without getting any promotion, then he is entitled to get the Higher Grade applicable to the post of the next promotion post and when the Government meant that it must be the grade of a post to which the incumbent is to be promoted, the word promotion can only mean an appointment to the post, and whether it is by transfer is immaterial. The Court also entered a finding that giving a restricted meaning to the word ‘promotion’ in the Pay Revision Order will result in clear discrimination whereby a person who is entitled to get promotion will be granted Time Bound Higher Grade whereas a person in another feeder category who can aspire to be appointed only by the method of transfer will be denied the above benefit which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and such an interpretation is always to be avoided. The Division Bench upheld Annexure A6 judgment observing that if a person remains in the entry cadre for 10 years without getting any promotion, then he is entitled to get the Higher Grade applicable to the post of the next promotion and concurred with the view of the Single Judge that the word ‘promotion’ can only mean an ‘appointment to the post’. 10. Impugning the said findings, the learned Government Pleader would submit that Annexures-A6 and A7 judgments were rendered without analysing the relevant Special Rules, Pay Revision Orders and Circulars in respect of the subject matter and the impugned order, Ext.P3 which was issued solely based on Annexures-A6 and A7 judgments is liable to be interfered with. It is further submitted that Annexure-A7 judgment was doubted by another Division Bench and the matter has been referred to a Full Bench as per order dated 23.03.2010 in W.A.Nos.996 of 2009 and 143 of 2009. Though the issues were considered by the Full Bench in Sasi v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (2) KLT 162 ], the Court did not essentially answer the reference. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the fact that appointment to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, is by a method of by transfer appointment from the post of Junior Superintendent or in their absence, by transfer from the post of Head Clerk/Welfare Organizer. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the fact that appointment to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, is by a method of by transfer appointment from the post of Junior Superintendent or in their absence, by transfer from the post of Head Clerk/Welfare Organizer. The post of Junior Superintendent and posts of Head Clerk and Welfare Organizer are coming under separate services and therefore, the appointment by by-transfer method, to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer can be considered only as an appointment from one service to another service and going by the definition of promotion under Rule 2(11) of KS&SSR, the appointment by by-transfer method to the post of Assistant Director cannot be termed or considered as promotion and therefore, while granting higher grade he is not entitled to get the scale of pay mentioned in the Pay Revision Order applicable to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer. Learned Government Pleader relying on Clause 6 of Annexure-A4 Pay Revision Order would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have found that the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer is not a post coming in the direct line of promotion from the post of Head Clerk/Welfare Organiser and therefore, the appointment to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer cannot be considered as promotion. Therefore, the said appointment being not a promotion, the applicants are only entitled to the next higher scale in the standard scales of pay given in Table I of Annexure III of Annexure-A4 Pay Revision Order. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to take note that the post of Welfare Organiser, which is covered by the Special Rules and is included in the Kerala General Subordinate Service which is issued as per GO(Ms) No.390/77/GAD dated 23.11.1977, is considered as a separate class in the Kerala General Subordinate Service and the appointing authority shall be Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board and the Tribunal ought to have found that the post of Welfare Organiser is coming under Kerala General Subordinate Service and the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer are coming under different services and therefore, the appointment by by-transfer method of Welfare Organiser to the post of Assistant Director cannot be treated as promotion. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that there exists no regular promotion post to the post of Welfare Organisers. In the case of Head Clerks, the next regular promotion post is Junior Superintendent and the next regular promotion post of Junior Superintendent is Junior Superintendent (Higher Grade/Senior Superintendent). As per the existing Rules/Orders relating to Time Bound Higher Grade promotion, for the post having entry scales up to a certain limit, Time Bound Higher Grade scales to qualified persons will be the scale of pay of the next regular promotion posts and to those having no regular promotion posts, Time Bound Higher Grade scales are the scales of pay mentioned in the Tables of the Pay Revision Order. Hence, the scale of pay applicable to a higher post that does not come in the regular line of promotion cannot be claimed as Higher Grade scale and therefore the respondents are not entitled to get the scale of pay of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer. It is further submitted that the Tribunal totally went wrong in relying on the decisions of this Court in O.P.No.439 of 1995 which was confirmed in W.A.No.1147 of 1998 as the said decisions have been rendered without analyzing the relevant Special Rules, Pay Revision Orders and Circulars in respect of the subject matter and can only be treated as per incuriam. The said decision rendered on the basis that a person is entitled for Higher Grade on account of stagnation in a post, irrespective of whether the next appointment is by way of promotion or by method of transfer is without proper interpretation or application of the definition of ‘promotion’ and ‘appointment by transfer’ contained in KS&SSR. 11. On the other hand it is the contention by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that Annexures-A6 and A7 judgments do not require any reconsideration as the judgments have clearly considered the idea of granting Time Bound Higher Grade promotion since the purpose is to neutralize the effect of stagnation and therefore the word promotion can only mean an appointment to the post and the method of appointment can either be by promotion or by transfer. If the interpretation given by the learned Government pleader is accepted, it will result in clear discrimination in as much as a person who is included in the feeder category and entitled to get promotion will get Time Bound Higher Grade whereas a person in another feeder category who can aspire to be appointed only by the method of transfer will be denied the above benefit resulting in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per Ext.R2(a) Pay Revision Order dated 20.01.2016, the Government has recognized appointment by transfer as equivalent for the purpose of granting first Time Bound Higher Grade and therefore sought for dismissal of the original petition. 12. As per the Special rules, the method of appointment to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare officer is only by way of by transfer from the post of junior superintendent or in absence by transfer from the post of Head Clerk/Welfare Organiser. Thus the special rule envisages only ‘by transfer’ as the method of appointment to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer and thus the same cannot be considered as the direct promotion post of Welfare Organiser. Relevant portion of Annexure-A1 Rules reads as follows : 3 Personal Assistant and Manager, Directorate of Sainik Welfare/ Assistant Secretary, Zila Sainik Welfare Officer By Transfer from the post of Junior Superintendent or in their absence by transfer from the post of Head Clerk / Welfare Officer 13. Clause (6) of the relevant Pay Revision Order (Annexure-A4 of Ext.P1) states as follows : “If there is a promotion post in respect of the categories of posts (entry) coming under pay range from Rs.8730-13540 to Rs.16980-31360 and its scale of pay is higher than the time bound higher grade proposed above, then the qualified incumbent will be given the scale of pay of the promotion post in the direct line of promotion as time bound higher grade. While assigning higher grade only qualified hands will get the scale of pay of regular promotion posts. Unqualified hands will be allowed the next higher scale of pay above that of the scale of pay of the post held at that time, in the standard scales of pay.” (underline supplied) 14. While assigning higher grade only qualified hands will get the scale of pay of regular promotion posts. Unqualified hands will be allowed the next higher scale of pay above that of the scale of pay of the post held at that time, in the standard scales of pay.” (underline supplied) 14. Clause (14) of the Pay Revision Order defines the term ‘entry post’ as the post to which an employee is initially appointed in government service by direct recruitment by the competent authority. Appointments made by PSC by transfer from other categories will also be treated as equivalent to direct recruitment for allowing the benefit of Higher Grade. However, promotion to a post in the direct line of promotion in a department to be made on the basis of select list prepared by the DPC, cannot be treated as direct recruitment for allowing the benefit of Time Bound Higher Grade. 15. Going by the above stipulations in the Pay Revision Order, it is clear that not only the post to which direct recruitment is made but the post to which appointment by transfer is made is also treated as entry post, but promotion to a post in the direct line of promotion in a department is excluded. In the case of the petitioners herein, the Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer post is not the direct line of promotion in the department. Time Bound Higher Grades are benefits given by the Government to avoid stagnation of employees in a post and specific provisions are included in the Pay Revision Orders regarding the same. In the present case, a clear provision as stated above is provided in the Pay Revision Order to the effect that Time Bound Higher Grade can be given on the pay scale, only when there is a direct line of promotion. As per Clause (6) of the Pay Revision Order, the requirement of having a promotion post in the direct line of promotion from the entry post held by the petitioner is a pre-condition for granting scale of pay of the promotion post as their Time Bound Higher Grade. Further, when the Special Rule provides only ‘by transfer’ as a mode of appointment to the next higher post i.e. Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, the petitioners can claim only the standard table scale as provided under the pay revision. Further, when the Special Rule provides only ‘by transfer’ as a mode of appointment to the next higher post i.e. Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, the petitioners can claim only the standard table scale as provided under the pay revision. When they are eligible and can be granted the standard scale, it cannot be said that there is stagnation as they are given higher pay in the form of standard scale of pay. The petitioners can aspire for promotion from their entry cadre only through an appointment of by transfer. There is no proper reasoning given in the judgment in O.P.No.493 of 1995 and W.A.No.1147 of 1998 regarding the same, and vaguely states that there will be discrimination and stagnation. Thus, the interpretation of the Single Bench and the Division Bench in the aforementioned cases for granting pay scale applicable to next promotion post irrespective of the method of appointment; be it promotion or by transfer is against the spirit and provisions of the Pay Revision Order and the Special Rules. 16. Furthermore, the term promotion cannot be said to mean only an appointment to the post as interpreted by the Single Bench. Going by the definition in Rule 2(11) of KS&SSR, “Promotion” means the appointment of a member of any category or grade of a service to a higher category or grade of such service or class. The recruitment by transfer is defined under Rule 2(13) of KS&SSR as follows. Going by the definition in Rule 2(11) of KS&SSR, “Promotion” means the appointment of a member of any category or grade of a service to a higher category or grade of such service or class. The recruitment by transfer is defined under Rule 2(13) of KS&SSR as follows. Rule 2(13)- “Recruited by transfer: A candidate is said to be “recruited by transfer” to a service - (i) if his appointment to the service is in accordance with the orders issued or rules prescribed for recruitment by transfer to the service; and (ii) if at the time of his first appointment thereto - (a) he is either a full member or an approved probationer in any other service, the rules for which prescribe a period of probation for members thereof: Provided that where the Special Rules for a service provide for recruitment by transfer to any class or category thereof from any specified class or category of another service, a candidate shall, unless the recruitment is made from a post carrying an identical scale of pay, be a full member or an approved probationer in the class or category so specified; or (b) he is the holder of a post in any other service for which no probation has been prescribed, and has put in satisfactory service in that post for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years.” In the case at hand, the petitioners who are in the subordinate State Service are eligible only for by transfer appointment to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer which is in the State Service going by the Special Rules. ‘Promotion’ and ‘by transfer’ are two methods of appointment and the method of appointment has to be taken into consideration while granting pay scale of higher post as Bound Higher Grade especially when the Pay Revision Order specifically states so. The definition of promotion contemplates appointment to a higher category or grade of such service or class and thus the interpretation that the word ‘promotion’ can only mean ‘an appointment to the post’ and that the method of appointment is immaterial does not hold good. 17. The definition of promotion contemplates appointment to a higher category or grade of such service or class and thus the interpretation that the word ‘promotion’ can only mean ‘an appointment to the post’ and that the method of appointment is immaterial does not hold good. 17. The reasoning given in Annexures-A6 and A7 judgments that giving a restricted meaning to the word promotion will result in clear discrimination and that the Special Rules may prescribe the method for filling up a post which may consist of promotion and appointment by transfer and a person who is included in a feeder category and who is entitled to get promotion will be getting a Time Bound Higher Grade and at the same time, a person in another feeder category who can aspire to be appointed only by the method of transfer will be denied the above benefits and the same violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As per Annexure-A1 Special Rules for the Department of Sainik Welfare, for appointment to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, the only method of appointment is by transfer from the post of Junior Superintendent and in their absence by transfer from the post of Head Clerk/Welfare Organiser. In the present case, there is no situation as contemplated in Annexures-A6 and A7 judgments, since the method of appointment to the said post is only by transfer. Furthermore, there is a finding in Annexures-A6 and A7 judgments that if a restricted meaning is given to the word promotion it would result in stagnation. But such a situation is not available in the facts of the present case in as much as the Pay Revision Order only restricts the grant of Time Bound Higher Grade in the scale of pay of the next regular promotion post but the applicants are entitled to Time Bound Higher Grade in the next higher scale in the standard scale of pay given in Table I of Annexure-III of Annexure-A4 Pay Revision Order. Therefore, there is no occasion for any stagnation in the present case as held by this Court in Annexures-A6 and A7 judgments. 18. The decision rendered by this Court in O.P.No.493 of 1995 and in W.A.No.1147 of 1998 is without proper consideration and analysis of the Clauses in the relevant Pay Revision Orders and Circulars and the factual situation in the present case. 18. The decision rendered by this Court in O.P.No.493 of 1995 and in W.A.No.1147 of 1998 is without proper consideration and analysis of the Clauses in the relevant Pay Revision Orders and Circulars and the factual situation in the present case. The pay revision orders are issued by the Government with much deliberation and consideration giving benefits to the employees. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair [ (2020) 5 SCC 421 ], has held that when the Government has taken decision based on the recommendation of expert committee, and several other factors including financial implications, the Court should not substitute its views and interfere only when it is satisfied that the government’s decision is arbitrary. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows : “38. The prescription of pay scales and incentives are matters where decision is taken by the Government based upon the recommendation of the expert bodies like the Pay Commission and several relevant factors including financial implication and court cannot substitute its views. As held in Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822], the Court should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when the Court is satisfied that the decision of the Government is arbitrary. Even in a case where the Court takes the view that order/scheme passed by the Government is not an equitable one, ordinarily only a direction could be given to the State Government or the authority for consideration of the matter and take a decision. In the present batch of cases where the respondents are claiming financial upgradation in the grade pay of promotional hierarchy, no grounds are made out to show that the MACP Scheme granting financial upgradation in the next grade pay is arbitrary and unjust; warranting interference. The implementation of the MACP Scheme is claimed to have led to certain anomalies; but as pointed out earlier, MACP Scheme itself is not under challenge". (underline supplied) 19. The Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Sudheesh Kumar [2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1008] has also considered a similar issue and held in paragraph 8 as follows : “8. The implementation of the MACP Scheme is claimed to have led to certain anomalies; but as pointed out earlier, MACP Scheme itself is not under challenge". (underline supplied) 19. The Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Sudheesh Kumar [2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1008] has also considered a similar issue and held in paragraph 8 as follows : “8. By the impugned judgment and order and while granting grade pay of Rs.6600 to respondent Nos.1 & 2 virtually, the High Court has modified the MACP Scheme which has been framed by the Government on the recommendations of the expert body like the pay commission and its recommendations for the MACP Scheme. As observed and held by this Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) the ACP which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of Government policy and interfering with the recommendations of the expert body like the pay commission and its recommendations for the MACP Scheme would have serious impact on the public exchequer. It is further observed that the recommendations of the pay commission for the MACP Scheme have been accepted by the Government and implemented. It is further observed that therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Government policies in the form of MACP Scheme which was after accepting the Sixth Central Pay Commission. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and the binding decision of this Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) with which we also agree, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting grade pay of Rs.6600 to respondent Nos.1& 2 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.” (underline supplied) In the case at hand, there is no arbitrariness or discrimination as the Welfare Organisers are eligible for a standard scale of pay as per the Pay Revision Order and there is no occasion for any stagnation. The only stipulation laid down in Clause (6) of the Pay Revision Order is that they cannot claim the pay scale of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer as the same is not the post in the direct line of promotion. It cannot be considered as arbitrary or discriminatory as the method of appointment to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare officer as per Special Rules is only by way of ‘by transfer’. It cannot be considered as arbitrary or discriminatory as the method of appointment to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare officer as per Special Rules is only by way of ‘by transfer’. When the statute itself does not provide for a promotion to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, the pay scale applicable to the higher post cannot be granted as Time Bound Higher Grade. Thus in Annexure A6 and A7 judgments, the court traversed beyond the scope of the Pay Revision Order interpreting Clause (6) in such a manner that it defeats the very purpose of the scheme. 20. The Full Bench in the decision reported in Sasi’s case cited supra though had considered the judgment in W.A.No.1147 of 1998, had finally concluded in the operative portion of the judgment that “the specific provision of Note (ii) to Rule 3 of the Special Rules serve to distinguish these cases from those decided in W.A.No.341 of 2007 and W.A.No.1147 of 1998 where the Division Benches, though were concerned with similar appointments in other departments-the Forest department and Zilla Sainik welfare office respectively-were not confronted with a provision similar to Note (ii) to Rule 3 of the Kerala Treasury Subordinate Service Special Rules and the lien contemplated therein”. So the above decision of the Full Bench has lesser bearing on the cases at hand in so far as there is a clear distinction drawn. Therefore, the reference is answered as follows: When Clause (6) of Annexure IV Pay Revision Order clearly provides that Time Bound Higher Grade can be given on pay scale only when there is a direct line of promotion and when the Special Rule provides only ‘by transfer’ to the next higher post i.e. Assistant Director/Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare officer, the applicants in the O.As can claim and are eligible only for the Standard Table Scale as provided in Table I of Annexure-III of Annexure-A4 Pay Revision Order. Accordingly, the above O.P(KAT)s are allowed setting aside the common order dated 03.02.2015 in O.A. No.1963 of 2013 and O.A.No.1852 of 2014 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.