JUDGMENT :

[Satish Chandra Sharma, J.]

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Hereinafter referred as “the Tribunal”), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2843/2011. In the said O.A, the petitioners' approached the Tribunal seeking two prayers, namely - re-fixation of their pay in accordance with the upgraded pay scale accepted by the Central Government pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (Hereinafter referred as "CPC") and parity of pay with the direct recruits recruited on or after 01.01.2016 (effective date of implementation of the recommendations of 6th CPC. In the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the first prayer of the petitioners and found the fixation of their pay to be in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008 (Hereinafter referred as "the 2008 Rules" or "Revised Pay Rules") issued on 29.08.2008. The second prayer was granted and thus, this challenge to the impugned order is limited to the extent of rejection of the petitioners' first prayer.

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that after the issuance of the 2008 Rules, the posts of Primary School Teachers (PSTs), Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) and Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) came to be upgraded and they were entitled to the revised pay scales we.f. 01.01.2016. For the calculation of the revised pay, the respondents were to proceed in accordance with Rule 7(1)(A) of the 2008 Rules. Upon the fixation of scales, the petitioners felt aggrieved and approached the Tribunal urging that the respondents have applied the relevant rules erroneously. The case of the petitioners was that their pay scale was upgraded within the 5th CPC regime and subsequent revision, as per Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules, was to be applied on the upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The Tribunal, after a detailed analysis, observed that the respondents have not erred in calculating the revised pay of the petitioners in terms of Rule 7 and in accordance with the multiplier of 1.86 provided therein. Para 5 of the impugned order is relevant and is reproduced for ready reference thus:

"5. We heard counsels for the parties and perused the record, as has been captioned hereinabove, in terms of Rule 7(1)(A), which is the case of applicants also, the pay in the pay band/pay scale was to be determined by multiplying the existing pay as on 01.01.2006 by factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of ten and if the minimum of the revised pay band/pay scale was more than the amount arrived at as per Rule 7(1) (A)(i) above, the pay was required to be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band/pay scales Admittedly the existing pay as defined in the rules means, the pay drawn in the prescribed existing scale of pay including stagnation increment. Even in the illustration relied upon by the parties (ibid) it has been made explicit that the existing basic pay had to be the pay drawn in the prescribed existing scale of pay and not in the upgraded pay scale. Had the pay required to be multiplied by a factor of 1.86 been the minimum of the upgraded scale of pay, then in illustration 4A it could be the amount 3200 which could have been multiplied, but it is not so. It is the amount of 3125 i.e. the existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 in the pre-revised pay scale which is multiplied by 1.86 to arrive at the revised pay structure of an employee, whose pay could be upgraded from Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 to Rs.3200-85-4900. A confusion could be created in the minds of the applicants only because the revised pay band plus grade pay for the pre-revised scale (S-5) for 3125 and 3200 is same i.e.6060."

After reproducing the fitment tables, the Tribunal then noted thus:

“Thus the respondents granted the applicants, the benefit of the revised pay as indicated against the basic pay drawn by them in the pre-revised pay scale and the grade p