JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

The Union of India through its General Manager East Central Railway, Hajipur and other officials of the East Central Railway have preferred this writ application putting to challenge a judgment and order dated 29.09.2021 passed in O.A. No. 050/0042/2019, whereby and whereunder, the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') has quashed the orders dated 02.11.2018 and 05.12.2018 which were impugned before the Tribunal, and has accordingly directed the petitioners to revise the pay scale, pay and pension of the sole respondent, by extending him the benefit of ad-hoc promotion for the purpose of determination of pay scale, salary and retiral benefits.

2. The respondent had filed the aforesaid O.A. No. 050/0042/2019 assailing the aforementioned two orders dated 02.11.2018 and 05.12.2018, whereby the basic pay of the respondent, which he was getting against a Group-C post of Senior Store Issuer, was reduced to the pay scale admissible for the post of Khalasi, a Group-D post. Consequent upon re-fixation of pay at a reduced rate admissible to a Group-D post of Khalasi, the petitioners intended to recover a sum of Rs. 11,41,125/-(Eleven Lakh Forty One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five Only) from the post retiral dues admissible to the respondent apart from fixation of pension and post retiral dues at a lower rate than what the respondent would have been entitled to, had he been treated to have retired holding the Group-C post of Senior Store Issuer.

3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by its impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2021 has allowed the respondent's Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by quashing the said orders dated 02.11.2018 and 05.12.2018 and has directed the petitioners to revise the pay scale, pay, and pension of the respondent by giving the respondent benefits of ad-hoc promotion, for the purpose of determination of pay and pay scale as well as retiral benefits. Certain recoveries in the light of the orders impugned before the Tribunal were effectuated by the petitioners. The amount so recovered has been directed by the Tribunal to be refunded to the respondent immediately. The Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application of the respondent has referred to and relied on a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court dated 22.08.2019 passed in CWJC No. 5401 of 2017 (The Union of India and Others Vs. S.S. Choubey), whereby in identical circumstance this Court had refused to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 165 of 2013.

4. We have heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.P. Dixit, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

5. The facts relevant for the present adjudication are short and undisputed. The respondent had joined as a casual labour in the Construction Department of the Railways on 28.04.1979. He was granted temporary status with effect from 01.01.1983. Ad-hoc promotion to the post of Store Issuer was granted to the respondent on 01.07.1990 with the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 which was revised to Rs. 3050-4590 and was revised further to the Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs.1900. Subsequently, the respondent was again granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Senior Store Issuer with effect from 20.02.1996 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1200-2040, which was revised to Rs. 4000-6000 and was further revised to Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-. While holding the Post of Senior Store Issuer on ad-hoc basis with the aforementioned pay band and grade pay with effect from 20.02.1996, the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. At the time of his superannuation, the basic pay of the respondent as Senior Store Issuer was admittedly 43,500/-.

6. No issue was ever raised relating to validity of the respondent's ad-hoc promotions which were granted to him with effect from