P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. Whether stepping up of pay of the seniors is to be effected as a matter of course, merely for the reason that some of them were fortunate enough in obtaining reliefs from different Tribunals to have it stepped up to be on par with the salary of the so called junior, who actually was already receiving a higher pay in the lower scale by virtue of having obtained promotion to the post of Selection Grade Auditor and also by virtue of his longer tenure in service, is the point to be considered in this Original Petition. It is also a matter for consideration, as to whether the specific points/pleadings raised from the part of the petitioners in their reply statement in this regard, with reference to the mandate of stepping up envisaged under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rules, were considered by the Tribunal while passing the order under challenge, but for making a reference to similar benefits extended by the Bangalore and Chennai Benches of the Tribunal.

2. The respondents herein approached the CAT - Ernakulam, by filing O.A. No. 954 of 2010 with the following prayers:

(i) To direct the respondents to fix the pay of the applicants on par with that of respondent No.8 at the stage of AAO, with effect from 03.07.1995 or an anterior date corresponding to the respective dates of promotion of the applicants as AAO.

(ii) Direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits arising out of such pay fixation including arrears of pay/pension.

(iii) Direct the respondents to grant the benefits within a time to be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal

(iv) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. It was pointed out by the respondents that one Mr. Narahari (who has been shown as the 35th respondent and was working in Bangalore), was much junior in the lower cadre, despite which he was granted a higher pay, when promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The case projected by the party respondents was that, under similar circumstances, some of the seniors in the State of Karnataka had approached the CAT, Bangalore by filing O.A. No. 670 of 1999 projecting their grievance as to the anomaly resulted and seeking to step up their salary. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. Though the Government/Department approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing W.P.(C) No. 5523 of 2001 and 6240 of 2001, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed as per Annexure A6 Order dated 02.12.2004. The matter was taken up before the Apex Court by way of SLP Nos. 24157 to 24159 of 2005. The delay involved in filing the SLP was condoned, but the SLP was dismissed, observing that the parties concerned had already retired from service; however, leaving the question of law open, as borne out by Annexure R2 order dated 12.03.2008.

4. The party respondents contend that some other similarly situated persons working in the State of Tamilnadu had approached the CAT, Chennai by filing O.A. No. 260 of 2000 seeking for similar reliefs. After considering the matter, the CAT - Chennai allowed the O.A. as per Annexure A1 order dated.13.11.2002, referring to the factual position with regard to Narahari’s case (cited supra) and the verdict passed by the concerned Tribunal/High Court of Karnataka in this regard. This was sought to be challenged by filing W.P.(C) No. 20774 of 2003 by the Government/Department before the High Court of Chennai. Observing that there was no merit to call for interference, it was dismissed as per Annexure A2 judgment dated 27.11.2008. Though the Department had approached the Apex Court by filing SLP, it also ended up in dismissal, as per Annexure A3 dated 01.10.2009. It was in the said background, that the party respondents sought for similar benefits, by filing O.A. No. 954 of 2010 before the CAT, Ernakulam.

5. The petitioners herein filed a detailed reply statement as to the actual facts