"The respondents were already getting the functional A pay of Masters while working as JBT teachers. Because of regular promotion order being issued for the post of Masters, it only amounted to regularization of the pay scale which they were already drawing i.e. pay scale of Masters. Thus, granting of one more increment because of B regularization of the respondents by promoting them to the post of Masters, would not entitle them to the double benefit; though they have already got one increment on acquiring the higher educational qualifications and now on regular promotion being given in the Masters' pay scale c in which they were already working, they cannot claim another benefit. Under Rule 4.4 it could have been possible to grant them fixation if they were continuing in the old scale of JBT teachers and on their promotion to the post of Master, then certainly they would have been 0 entitled to fixation of pay giving them the initial pay the stage of timescale next above their substantive pay in respect of the old post. But they are already fixed in the pay scale of higher post of Master which though legitimately they were not entitled to because of the change E in the policy but they continued in the higher pay scale despite the change in the policy and the Government did not take any further steps to put the house in proper order. Be that as it may, since the respondents were drawing the higher pay scale on acquiring of higher educational F qualifications i.e. the Master's pay scale, and now only regular orders have been passed, promoting them as Master, there is no question of again fixing them next above their substantive pay in respect of the old post. They are not holding the old post any more and they were not drawing the salary of JBT teachers i.e. the old post. G Therefore, there is no question of granting them the initial pay the stage of timescale next above their substantive pay in respect of the old post. Judicial fiat cannot create anomalous position against the statute."
