JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

The issue

1. The petitioner, who was occupying the post of Advisor (Nutrition) in the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, sought parity of pay with the posts of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy). The Central Administrative Tribunal, (“the Tribunal”, hereinafter) has, by judgment dated 7 October 2016 render in OA 3216/2011, rejected his claim.

2. The petitioner is before us, challenging the said decision.

3. As such, the only issue in consideration is whether the post of Advisor (Nutrition) is entitled to parity of pay with the post of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy).

4. We have heard Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at length.

5. Before adverting to Mr. Shashank Kumar’s submissions, we may note that the issue of whether the post of Advisor (Nutrition) was entitled to pay parity with the posts of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy), was addressed by the 5th Central Pay Commission, (“5th CPC”, hereinafter), which returned a recommendation against the petitioner and recommended that the post of Advisor (Nutrition) be placed in the scale of ₹ 4500-5700, of whi