Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner by the present petition assails the judgment and order dated 12.8.2003 in OA No.3020/2002 and order dated 28.11.2003 in R.A. No.316/2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissing his OA and Revision Application. Tribunal proceeded on the ground that OM dated 10.7.1998, on which reliance was placed by the respondents to defend its action of refusing to grant pay protection, has not been challenged by the petitioner. Furthermore, in the absence of such a challenge, the Tribunal refused to question the rationale of the said OM.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be noted:

(i) Petitioner is a B.E. (Electronics and Tele Communication) and holds a Master's degree in International Business. Petitioner appeared for the All India Civil Services Examination. He cleared the preliminary examination in May, 1998 and was declared successful in the main examination on 9.6.1999. He was working as Senior Officer (Marketing) in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) from 17.8.1998 on probation for a period of one year. Petitioner, in order to join the civil services, resigned from VSNL on 20.9.1999 by giving one month notice applicable to a probationer. His basic pay in the Indian Revenue Services was fixed at Rs.8,000/- in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500/-.

(ii) On 10.11.2000, the pay scale in VSNL was revised vide office order dated 6.10.2000 and petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.13,350/- as on 1.8.1998. Petitioner vide his letter dated 24.7.2001, requested VSNL for issuance of a certificate to the effect that he had successfully completed his probation period with a declaration that the same would be used for the limited purpose of seeking pay protection from Indian Revenue Service. As a special case, VSNL issued a certificate to the petitioner on 14.8.2001 certifying his 'deemed confirmation'. Despite the fact that the petitioner's service in VSNL was not confirmed in writing at the time of his resignation, yet on the basis of probationary reports received, it was certified that petitioner had successfully completed the probation period and would have been confirmed in the Company's services, had he continued in the Company.

(iii) Petitioner submitted a representation to the Head of his Department on 7.2.2002, seeking protection and re-fixation of his pay as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 7.8.1989. Relevant extracts from the OM dated 7.8.1989 are quoted herein below for ready reference:

"1. The undersigned is directed to say that as per extent rules/orders on the subject, pay protection is granted to candidates who are appointed by the method of recruitment by selection through the UPSC, if such candidates are in government service. No such pay protection is granted to candidates working in Public Sector Undertakings, Universities, Semi Government Institutions or Autonomous bodies when they are so appointed in Government. As a result of this, it has not been possible for Government to draw upon the talent that is available in non-government Organizations.

2. The question as to how pay protection can be given in the cases of candidates recruited from Public Sector Undertakings etc. has been engaging the attention of the Government for some time. The matter has been carefully considered and the President is pleased to decide that in respect of candidates working in Public Sector Undertakings, Universities Semi Government Institutions or Autonomous bodies who are appointed as direct recruits on selection through a properly constituted agency including departmental authorities, making recruitment directly, their initial pay may be fixed at a stage in the scale of pay attached to the post so that the pay and DA as admissible in the Government will protect the pay and DA already being drawn by them in their parent organizations. In the event of such a stage not being available in the post to which they ha