Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The petitioner through the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing the impugned order dated 9.12.2015, Annexure P.4 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT) rejecting his claim with regard to parity of pay scale. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner pay scale equal to the pay scales granted to his counter parts working as Assistant Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by quashing the order dated 16.4.2013, Annexure A.1.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Registrar in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi on 21.4.1999 by way of direct recruitment. On 26.3.2003, Annexure A.2, the petitioner addressed a representation to the Revenue Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance seeking revision of pay scales of the Assistant Registrars, Deputy Registrars and the Registrar of CESTAT and sought parity of pay with the corresponding officials of the DRT. The President, CESTAT agreeing with the claim forwarded the representation to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 28.8.2003, Annexure A.3. Having received no action, the petitioner filed application before the Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 1.6.2004, Annexure A.4 with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representations by passing a speaking order within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Thereafter, the department informed the petitioner vide order dated 1.6.2004 that it had agreed to the up gradation of the pay scale of the post of Assistant Registrar in CESTAT from Rs. 6500-10,500 to the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 with prospective effect. It was also stated that the request made by the petitioner seeking parity of pay with the post of Assistant Registrar in DRT had been considered and could not be acceded to as the channels of promotion in CESTAT and DRT were different. Aggrieved by the said letter, the petitioner and other Assistant Registrars, CESTAT filed application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.5.2007, Annexure A.6 allowed the said application and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reexamination of the claim for parity of pay scale strictly in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Apex court in various decisions. A reasoned order was directed to be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Respondent No.1 instead of complying with the direction issued by the Tribunal referred the matter of up gradation of pay scale of the petitioner to the VIth Central Pay Commission. The Pay Commission did not discuss the issue in question. Vide order dated 7.11.2008, Annexure A.9, the claim of the petitioner for parity of pay scale with the Assistant Registrars of DRT was rejected. The said order was not communicated to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 23.11.2010, Annexure A.11, the petitioner came to know through RTI that order dated 7.11.2008, Annexure A.9 had been passed by the respondents. The petitioner filed application before Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. The petitioner prepared a comparative chart and presented before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 issued an office memorandum dated 16.4.2013, Annexure A.1 stating that the department of expenditure which was the nodal department rejected the matter regarding up gradation of scale of pay of Assistant Registrars in CESTAT at par with Assistant Registrars in DRT. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi by filing appellation dated 5.5.2014. The respondents filed counter affidavit in July 2014 and the petitioner filed rejoinder. After considering the matter, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 9.12.2015, Annexure P.4 and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.;