The main legal point established is that the re-employed pensioners are entitled to be fixed at the same stage at which they were last drawing the pay in their previous employment, as per the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Fixation of pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986.

Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Therespondent-applicant before the CAT had been initially appointed as Signalman on 26.66 and after serving 15 years actively and being kept on reserved list for two years, he was retired from the services on 31st August, 1981. Thereafter, he was re-employed in the Telecommunication Department as Telephone Operator on 26th February, 1982 in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-480. At the time of his retirement, the applicant was drawing pay of Rs.250/-plus 20=270, which was more than the minimum of the pay-scale in which he was appointed on re-employment. So also the minimum of the pay-scale applicable to the post of re-employment was lower than the maximum of the pay-scale in which the respondent-applicant was drawing his emoluments at the time of his discharge from the defence service. His pay-scale at the time of retirement was Rs. 205-265. By considering that the respondent-applicant has been appointed in pay-scale higher than in which he was drawing his emolument in his previous employment, he was fixed at the minimum of pay-scale at Rs. 260 per month.

3. Aggrieved with fixation at the minimum of the pay-scale as the Telephone Operator, the petitioner represented that he is entitled to be fixed at that stage of the scale at which he was drawing pay while he was serving in the Army.

4. Theemployer having not agreed with the demand of the applicant, an Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal raising grievance about fixation of pay in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-480 on his re-employment by the Telecommunication Department.

5. The respondent U.I.O. contended before the Tribunal that the applicant was drawing his emoluments in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-265 (sic 205-265 ?) in the Indian Army and he was re-employed on the post of Telephone Operator which carries the higher pay-scale Rs. 260-400. He was, therefore, not entitled to be fixed at any higher stage in the pay-scale, but could be fixed at the minimum of the pay-scale. The Tribunal held, following its earlier decision rendered in Shyam Lal Saran vs. Union of India in O.A. No. 36/2000, that the fixation of pay on re-employment in the case of Shyamlal was held to be as per terms of Office Memorandum dated 211.58 and 13.68 which entitled the applicant in the aforesaid case to be fixed at that stage of the pay-scale after according increment for the number of years served in the previous employment.

6. Following the aforesaid decision, the application filed by the applicant was allowed by directing the respondents to fix his pay in accordance with O.M. dated 211.58 and 13.68 by grant of advance increment equal to the number of completed years of service with the Indian Army.

7. Aggrieved with the order dated 10th April, 2001, this writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India in its Telecommunication Department.

8. It hasbeen contended by Mr. Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that in terms of Regulation of Pay during Re-employment, the fixation of the respondent-applicant at the lowest of the pay-scale applicable to the post was rightly done for the reasons noticed by us above as per the contention raised before the Tribunal.

9. Hehas further pointed out that decision in Shyam Lal’s case (supra) by the CAT which was founded onjoint reading of the office memorandum dated 211.58, 14.63 and 13.68 was subjected to D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3 144/2001 (U.O.I. vs. Shyam Lal Saran). He, therefore, states that no finality could be attached to the decision passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 36/2000.

10. So far as the decision in Shyamlal’s case is concerned, the writ petition has since been dismissed and was so informed by the learned Counsel for the respondents) on 3rd December, 2001 holding that the office memorandums issued after 211.85(sic 211.58?) were not merely clarificatory but were in fact modifying the earlier memorandum. The office memorandum dated 211.58 provided