JUDGMENT

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ALL these appeals pursuant to the special leave granted are filed by the Union of India, the Comptroller. and Auditor-General and the Principal Accountant-General. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the benefit under Office Memo (OM) dated 12/06/1987 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 ("ia and AD" for short) with effect from 1/01/1986 as in the case of Audit Wing or whether it should be from 1/04/1987 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 1/01/1986. Subsequent to the said judgment some of the employees in the Accounts Wing in Tamil Nadu filed petitions before the Madras bench of the CAT claiming that benefit should be extended with effect from 1/01/1986. 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 12/06/1987 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 1/01/1986. The other part is contained in para 11. 38. Pursuant to those recommendations the government decided to implement the same with effect from 1/04/1987. 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 respondent employees contended that the Pay Commission recommended that there should be parity in the pay scales of the staff in the IA and AD and other Accounts organisations and since all of them discharge the similar duties the benefit should be extended to all of them uniformly with effect from 1/01/1986. To appreciate these contentions it becomes necessary to refer to the history of the case briefly and ,tjp the relevant documents including the recommendations of the Pay Commission.

( 2 ) IA and AD headed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India (C and AG) recommended some time in 1983 to government of India to bifurcate IA and AD into two separate and distinct wings, one to exclusively deal with audit and the other to deal with accounts withtheir own separate personnel. The government of India after considering all aspects approved the proposal in December 1983. Thereafter C and AG formulated a scheme on 19/12/1983 for bifurcation of the IA and AD into two separate and distinct wings from 1/03/1984 providing for all incidental and auxiliary matters thereto. Before the restructuring of the cadres, the staff working in the IA and AD 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 tha