Plain meaning in pay fixation rules bars an additional increment where revised pay is fixed at the minimum.

Plain and unambiguous statutory language must be given effect as written, and a court cannot extend a benefit by interpretation where the provision contains distinct and separately operating clauses. Rule 8(1)(a) required pay fixation at the minimum of the revised scale when existing emoluments were below that minimum, while Rule 8(1)(b) applied only where existing emoluments matched a stage in the revised scale or the next higher stage. The additional increment under clause (b) could not be read into clause (a), and pay was therefore to be fixed only at the minimum of the revised scale.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a proper interpretation of Rule 8(1)(a) and Rule 8(1)(b) of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985, a University teacher whose existing emoluments were below the minimum of the revised scale was entitled to one additional increment while being fixed at the minimum of the revised scale.

Analysis: Rule 8(1) contemplated two distinct situations. Under clause (a), where the existing emoluments were below the minimum of the revised scale, pay had to be fixed at the minimum of the revised scale. Under clause (b), where the existing emoluments corresponded to a stage in the revised scale or the next higher stage, pay so fixed was to be increased by one increment, except where fixed at the minimum. The text was held to be clear and unambiguous, leaving no room to extend the increment benefit from clause (b) to clause (a). A liberal construction was rejected because the rule merely prescribed the mode of fixation and could not be rewritten by interpretation. The separate operation of the clauses was reinforced by the punctuation and structure of the provision.

Conclusion: The teachers were not entitled to an additional increment under Rule 8(1)(b) when their pay fell to be fixed at the minimum under Rule 8(1)(a).

Final Conclusion: The pay fixation had to be made only at the minimum of the revised scale, and the writ petitioners could not claim the further increment sought by them.

Ratio Decidendi: When statutory language is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to it as written and cannot extend a benefit by interpretation so as to make one clause override a distinct and separately operating clause.

---