https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183911 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. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183911 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183911