JUDGMENT

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.

1. All these appeals pursuant to the special leave granted are filed by the Union of India, the Comptroller & Auditor General and the Principal Accountant General. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the benefit under Office Memo (O.M.) dated 12th June, 1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure should be extended to the members of the Accounts Wing of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department ("I.A. & A.D." for short) with effect from 1.1.86 as in the case of Audit Wing or whether it should be from 1.4.87 as indicated in the said Office Memo? Several of the employees belonging to the Accounts Wing filed petitions and the Bangalore Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT" for short) held that they are entitled to the benefit with effect from 1.1.86. Subsequent to the said judgment some of the employees in the Accounts Wing in the Tamilnadu filed petitions before the Madras Bench of the CAT claiming that benefit should be extended with effect from 1.1.86. The Madras bench was not prepared to agree with the view taken by the Bangalore Bench and the matter was referred to the Chairman of the CAT who constituted a Full Bench presided over by himself. The Full Bench agreed with the view taken by the Bangalore Bench and answered the reference accordingly. Following the decision of the Full Bench, the Madras Bench passed the final orders. All these appeals are filed against several orders passed by the Madras Bench as well as the Bangalore Bench. It is contended on behalf of the Union of India that the Office Memo dated 12.6.87 is based on the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission which consists of two parts. The first part recommends corresponding scales of pay for the existing posts in the Accounts Wing giving effect from 1.1.86. The other part is contained in para 11.38. Pursuant to those recommendations the Government decided to implement the same with effect from 1.4.87. It is also contended that the Full Bench failed to appreciate correctly that the second part of the recommendation of the Pay Commission clearly indicated that the number of posts to be placed in these scales were to be identified by the Government and the Government could therefore decide and then give effect at a later date. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents employees contended that the Pay Commission recommended that there should be parity in the pay scales of the staff in the I.A & A.D. and other Accounts organisations and since all of them discharge the similar duties the benefits should be extended to all of them uniformly with effect from 1.1.86. To appreciate these contentions it becomes necessary to refer to the history of the case briefly and to the relevant documents including the recommendations of the Pay Commission.

2. I.A & A.D. headed by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (C. & AG.) recommended some time in 1983 to Government of India to bifurcate I.A. & A.D. into two separate and distinct wings, one to exclusively deal with audit and the other to deal with accounts with their own separate personnel. The Government of India after considering all aspects approved the proposal in December, 1983. Thereafter C. & AG. formulated a scheme on 19.12.83 for bifurcation of the I.A & A.D. into two separate and distinct wings from 1.3.84 providing for all incidental and auxiliary matters thereto. Before the restructuring of the cadres, the staff working in the I.A. & A.D. were asked to exercise their option to serve in either of the two wings. Some exercised the option. There was a grievance that the various equivalent cadres in Audit and Accounts Wings were not paid the same scales of pay and the persons allotted to the Audit Wing were drawing more pay than the persons in the Accounts Wing. The Fourth Pay Commission which was looking into various aspects of the matter recommended in its report that there should be