Judgment

VERMA, J.:- This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal purports to be a sequel of this Courts decision in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124. The petitioner contends that the decision in Sampath Kumars case (supra) equates the Central Administrative Tribunal with the High Court and, therefore, its Chairman has to be equated with the Chief Justice of a High Court and the Vice-Chairman and Members must be equated with the sitting Judges of the High Court in all respects. It is contended that while the Vice-Chairman has been equated with sitting Judges of the High Court, the Members have not been so equated in their pay and other conditions of service. It is further contended that a distinction has been made in the conditions of service, particularly the pay and age of superannuation between the Vice-Chairman and the Members, which is arbitrary and, therefore, the Members also should be given the same pay as the Vice-Chairman and their age of superannuation should also be the same i.e. 65 years as that of the Vice-Chairman. It is urged that the judicial functions discharged by the Vice