ORDER
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10th January, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.1127/88. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether serving MWOs/WOs, who have to their credit 8 years combined service as MWOs/WOs, on commissioning in the rank of Flying Officer are also entitled to get two more increments in addition to the grant of weightage in qualifying service under para 9 of the Air force Instructions.
2. This question arises in the context of following facts and circumstances. After serving for 25 years and attaining the rank of a Warrant Officer, the respondent was commissioned in the rank of Flying Officer in the Accounts Branch on 21st September, 1985 and his pay was fixed at Rs.830/- per month. The respondent made repeated representations to the authority concerned for fixation of his pay at Re.910/- per month in accordance with the instructions contained in Air force Instructions No.48/75, but in vain. He, therefore, filed a Writ Petition No.1127/88 seeking a direction to the appellant to fix his salary at Re.910/- per month. The respondent’s main grievance was that as he had put in 25 years of service, his pay at the time of his commissioning in the rank of a Flying Officer should have been fixed at Re.910/- per month. He was denied this benefit and his initial pay was pegged down to the minimum of pay scale at Rs.830/- per month. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to fix the salary of the respondent after giving two increments, i.e., by antedating the appointment of the petitioner as Flying Officer by two years on 1.10.1985 for the purpose of pay only i.e. to fix the salary so that the respondent is paid a total sum of the salary at the start of the scale of the Flying Officer plus two annual increments, which he would have earned, i.e., Rs.830/- + 40/- +40/- =Rs.910/- and calculated accordingly throughout the period of his service after his being commissioned and to pay him the arrears within two months from the date of the order.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge, by misconstruing Para 9 of the Air Force Instructions (Annexure 8), granted double and unintended benefit to the respondent by directing the appellant to fix his initial pay at Rs. 910/- per month. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent rested himself squarely on the reasoning adopted by the learned single Judge and forcefully contended that on his appointment as Flying Officer, the respondent was also entitled to get two advance increments in addition to his pay as Flying Officer in accordance with para 9 of the said Instructions. Inevitably, the issue here has to run around the language of Para 9 of the Air Force Instructions, and therefore, the provisions of the said Para may be read at the very outset:-
“Airmen who successfully complete the training will be granted commissions as under against certain selected posts earmarked for them Serving MWOs, W0s and Flt. Sgts. will be granted commission in the rank of Pilot Officer. Those WOs/MWOs who have to their credit 8 years combined service as MWOs/WOs and in the ranks at the time of grant of commission, will however be commissioned in the rank of Flying Officer and granted 2 years antedate for purpose of pay only.”
4. Learned Single Judge observed that what is contained in the aforesaid Para is that the eligible officer would be commissioned as Flying Officer, which would automatically make available the minimum pay which the officer is to draw as a Flying Officer. It is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that if the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. In interpreting the scope of the aforesaid para, the dominant purpose underlying the said instruction has to be borne in mind. According to Para 9, all serving MWOs/WOs on completion of successful training are granted commission in the rank of Pilot Officer. Those MWOs/WOs, who have to their credit 8 years combined service at the time of grant of Commission are granted Commission in the rank of Flying Officer and are allowed weightage in qualifying service for the purpose of pay only, which is restricted to two years. The dominant purpose of incorporating the said instruction is to give benefit of more pay by 2 years to those MWOs/WOs, who have to their credit 8 years combined service at the time of grant of Commission in the rank of Flying Officer. It seems inconceivable that by incorporating the said instruction the Government could have intended to grant two more increments to such MWOs/WOs in addition to the grant of weightage in qualifying service as interpreted by the learned single Judge. Learned Single Judge, on a construction of para 9 of the Air force Instructions, also observed that the respondent being appointed as Flying Officer is entitled to increments which he would have earned after serving for two years as Flying Officer. We are constrained to observe that such a construction of Para 9 is not at all warranted by the said instructions. It bears repetition that Para 9 confers benefit or weightage in qualifying service to those MWOs/WOs who have to their credit 8 years of combined service at the time of their Commissioning in the rank of Flying Officer and this benefit or weightage is limited to two years only.
5. In the instant case, the respondent as a Warrant Officer had 8 years of qualifying service to his credit at the time of commissioning in the rank of Flying Officer on 21.9.1985 and his pay was fixed at Rs.830/- by granting weightage in qualifying service as required by Para No.9. The right flowing under Para 1 of the Air Force Instructions accrued to the respondent from an anterior date i.e. 21.9.1983 and after allowing the weightage in qualifying service, which is restricted to two years for the purpose of pay, his pay was fixed at Re. 830/- per month. Consequently, we hold that fixation of the respondent’s pay at Rs.830/per month, at the time of his commissioning in the rank of Flying Officer, is in accordance with the directions contained in para 9 quoted above.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and we accordingly set aside the same. The writ Petition filed by the Petitioner stands dismissed and this appeal is allowed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.