JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-This appeal is preferred against the order of the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), New Delhi in O.A. No. 777/92 dated 7.8.1992.

2. The respondent preferred the said O.A. praying for a direction to the appellants to grant him (applicant before the Tribunal) the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- from 1.1.1986 to which he is entitled to in terms of the rules as well as on the principles of "equal pay for equal work". The claim of the respondent was that he being attached to the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal as Private Secretary is entitled to the same of pay as drawn by the Private Secretaries to Ministers and Judges of the High Court. This claim of the respondent was resisted by the appellants by filing reply to the affidavit filed by the respondent before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and arguments advanced by counsel on both sides granted the relief in the following terms :

"Pending the making of appropriate provisions in this regard in the rules, particularly those relating to the selection of Private Secretaries in the Higher scale of pay of Rs. 3000-4500, it would be reasonable to grant to such of those Private Secretaries to the Chairman/Vice Chairman of the C.A.T. who have rendered eight years of service in the feeder grade of Rs. 2000-3500, including the service rendered by the in the C.S.S.S. or their parent departments in a similar grade, the scale of pay of Rs. 3000-4500 on adhoc basis. Accordingly, we direct that the respondents shall give the benefit of upgradation on an ad hoc basis to the applicant from the date he completes the period of eight years service in the feeder grade of Rs. 2000-3500, including the service rendered by him in the C.S.S.S. Grades `A & B. The pay of the applicant shall be refixed accordingly and the arrears paid to him."

4. It will be seen from the above, the respondent in his individual capacity prayed for the issue of writ of mandamus, the Tribunal granted the relief which would amount to re-writing the rules governing the services of the personnel in the Tribunal. In the view, we propose to take it is necessary to deal with the matter elaborately.

5. The crucial factor in matters of this nature revolves around mainly to mode of recruitment, qualification, responsibilities attached to the office, promotional opportunities and like of that. On this aspect, the respondent (applicant before Tribunal) has not brought forth materials in his affidavit before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the appellants in their reply have elaborately stated as follows :-

"4. It is submitted that there is no functional parity between the Private Secretaries in the Central Administrative Tribunal and those attached to the Secretaries in the Ministries/departments of the Govt. of India and judges of High Courts as briefly explained below :-

(i) The conditions of service of the employees of Central Administrative Tribunal are entirely different from those of the Secretariat and the High Courts. The Secretariat employees are formed of organized cadres and the Private Secretaries come within the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) cadre. Similarly, the employees of High Courts are governed by a different set of rules separate for each High Court. For instance, the Delhi High Court employees are governed by the Delhi High Court Establishment Rules, 19/2. On the other hand the employees of Central Administrative Tribunal are governed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Staff Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985 notified by the Central Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Under Rule 3 thereof, the nature and categories of the officers and other employees of the Tribunal and the scale of pay attached thereto have to be as specified in the Schedule thereto. In the Schedule referred to, the post of