UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusJAGDISH PANDEY & ORS.

                    [2010] 7 S.C.R. 979


                 UNION'OF INDIA & O.RS.                       A
                             V.
                JAGDISH PANDEY & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 365 of 2007)

                       JULY 8, 2010
                                                               B
  [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

      Service law - Disparity in pay scale .,... Tow..er Wagon
Drivers in Railways - Claim of running· allowance as. paid to
goods train drivers - Granted by High C6uii ;.;.. Competent C
Authority withdrawing the higherpayscales granted to 7WDs
in comparison to goods train drivers since higher pay scales
granted inadvertently - Challenge to - Order by Competent
Authority set aside by tribunal as also High Court - On
appeal, held: Pay scale is a legitimate right of employee and D
except for valid and proper reasons cannot be varied, that too
only in accordance with law - On facts, no justifiable reasons
existed - Union of India did not place any material before
Forum/Courts to show that TWDs and goods train drivers were
different and distinct classes and were entitled to receive E
different pay scales - It never pleaded essential basis for
justifying payment of different pay scales to two categories of
drivers- 7WDs and goods train drivers - More so, they could
not raise vague averments for the first time before this Court,
 without any supporting data or documents.                      F
       Pleadings - When to be raised - Held: Specific
  pleadings are to be raised before the first forum for
  adjudication of dispute - They are the basis of the case of
  respective parties even before appellate/higher Courts -
  Parties would be bound by such pleadings, subject to right of G
: amendment.

     The respondents are/were working as Tower Wagon
 Drivers under the Railways. They filed writ petition
                          979                                  H
    980      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 7 S.C.R.

A seeking the running allowance. The High Court allowed
  the writ petition. The Railways paid running allowance to
  the respondents. Thereafter, the Railways passed an
  order that they granted higher pay scales to respondents
  inadvertently and the said scale is withdrawn. The
s respondents challenged the order passed by the .
  Railways. The tribunal allowed the application and set
  aside the order issued by the Railways. The High Court
  upheld the order. It held that at all relevant time Tower
  Wagon Drivers are being treated equivalent to Goods
c Train Drivers, thus there is no reason for treating them
  differently now. Hence the appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. There is no legal infirmity in the judgment
D of the tribunal and the High Court. [Para 12] [992-E]

         1.2. The tribunal specifically noticed that after
    acceptance of Vth Pay Commission Report by the
    Government, TWDs were given the salary in the pay scale
E   of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and in the letter dated
    15.4.1993 the concerned authorities noticed the disparity
    created even between the TWDs i.e. in Sealdah division
    out of 32 TWDs, 24 were getting pay scale of Rs. 1350-
    2200 (unrevised) and remaining 8 were getting the pay
    scale of Rs. 1320-2040 and it directed a uniform pay scale
F   of Rs. 1350-2200 should be given to all the TWDs. No
    material was produced to show as to what were the
    reasons or material on the basis of which the authorities
    had decided to discontinue the pay scale of Rs. 1350-
    2200 to these respondents. The reasoning and
G   discussion in the order of the tribunal clearly shows that
    the action on the face of it was arbitrary. The order of the
    tribunal was confirmed by the High Court and the
    appellants made no effort to place anything on record to
    show that they were different and distinct classes and
H   were entitled to receive different pay scales. Even in the
  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JAGDISH PANDEY &               981    "-
                    ORS.
order dated 09.08.2002, the tribunal specifically noticed        A
that it was not even averred that eligibility criteria for the
post of TWDs was different than that for the goods driver
and their duties were substantially different. In other
words, either before the tribunal or before the High Court,
the Union of India never pleaded the essential basis for         B
justifying payment of different pay scales to two
categories of drivers i.e. TWDs on the one hand and
goods train drivers on the· other. There has to be a
substantial difference in method of recruitment, eligibility,
duties and responsibilities before substantial disparity in      c
scale can be justified. [Para 8] (990-A-F]

      1.3. As far as recording of finding of facts is
 concerned, factual disputes can hardly be raised before
 this Court and in any case for the first time. Despite this
 the Union of India failed to place any material to              D
 substantiate its decision before the Forum/Courts. The
 judgment of the High Court, in relation to running
 allowances attained finality. At that time no other issue
 was raised by Union of India that they are different and
 distinct posts with different pay scales and as such            E
 identical running allowances could not be paid. In fact,
-the judgment of the High Court has duly been
 implemented now for years together without objection.
 Not only this, same pay scale as that of the goods train
 driver has been paid to these respondents for years and         F
 there appears to be no justification on record for
 unilateral withdrawal of such a scale. Pay scale is a
 legitimate right of an employee and except for valid and
 proper reasons it cannot be varied, that too only in
 accordance with law. None of these justifiable reasons          G
 exist in the instant case. The impugned order itself does
 not give any reason. The expression 'erroneously' used
 in the order can hardly justify withdrawal of such an
 existing right. (Para 8] (990-G-H; 991-A-C]
                                                                 H
    982    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2010) 7 S.C.R.

A      1.4. The respondents had specifically pleaded and
  even placed on record certain orders in which in certain
  divisions the post of TWO is inter-changeable with goods
  driver. Orders have also been placed on record to show
  that in different di'l(isions TWDs are getting different
B scales and the Railway Board, as such, has not passed
  any final order which is uniformly applicable to all 'the
  divisions of the· Railways in India. The appellants
  disputed the same. The appellants also attempted to file
  certain documents on record to show that the duties of
c both these posts are different and even,recruitment
  criteria is differ~nt. This contention cannot be raised for
  the first time before this Court. It was expected of the
  Union of India to raise all these issues before the
  appropriate forum i.e. the tribunal and justify the same.
  Even before this Court, these averments have been made
0
  without any supporting data or documents to
  substantiate such a plea. No comparative chart of the
  duties and responsibilities of these two posts,
  recruitment rules specifying eligibility or selection criteria
E and working conditions have been placed on record. The
  vagl!e averments made to that effect cannot persuade to
  distU1b the concurrent findings recorded by the tribunal
  as well as by the High Court. [Para 9] [991-C-G] . ....._
       1.5 The parties are expected to raise specific
F pleadings before the first forum for adjudication of the
   dispute. Those pleadings are the basis of the case of the
   respective parties even before the appellate/higher
   Courts. The parties would be bound by such pleadings,
   of course, subject to the right of amendment allowed in ·
G ·accordance with law. In the instant case, no such
   amendment has been carried out even before the High
   Court and it will be unfair for this Court to get into the
   controversy of factual matrix of the case at this stage of
   the proceedings, particularly, when there exists no
H justification whatsoever on record as to why even these
  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JAGDISH PANDEY &               983
                    ORS.

averments were not made before the tribunal and not              A
even before the. High Court, despite the fact that the
tribunal had specifically made comments in this regard
in its judgment.. Even before this Court but for bald
averments no documents, data or cogent material has
been placed for apptopriate adjudication of the rights of        B
the parties. [Para 1O] [991-H; 992-A-D]
                    ··~
     1.6 Most of the respondents in. the instant appeal
·have already retired from service and there exist no
 justification for effecting. any recoveries from their          C
 salaries as they have already worked and received their
 salaries as granted by the Union. of India itself. [Para 11]
 [992-D-E]                                  .

    Chandraprakash. Madhavrao Dadwa v.. Union of India
(1998) 8 SCC 154; 'Shyam Bab'u Verma v. Union of India           D
(1994) 27 ATC 121;. referred
                     .   . . . to.
                           ~   '   '




                     · " Casa Law Reference:
        (1998) 8 sec 154               R~ferred to.   Para 3
                                          ,,
                                                      Para 3 ·
                                                                 E
        (1994) 27 ATC 121              Referred to.
    e

     CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Ciyil Appeal No. 365
of 2007.                ·

    From the Judgment & Order dated 02.03.2005 of the High       F
Court at Calcutta in W.P.C.T. No. 697 of 2002 and W.P.C.T.
No. : 79 of 2003. ·
      Pramod Swarup, Asha G.Nair, Arvind Kr,. Sharma, B.
 Krishna Prasad for the Appellants.
                                                                 G
    · Jetender Singh, S.K Sabharwal for the Respondents.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The Union of India being
 aggrieved from·the judgment and order of a Division Bench of    H
    984       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A the Calcutta High Court dated 2nd March, 2005 dismissing, the
  Writ Petition filed by the Union of India against the order of the
  Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, (hereinafter referred
  to as 'the Tribunal') dated 18th January, 2002, has filed the
  present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
B The Tribunal vide its judgment had allowed the application filed
  by the respondents herein and had set aside the order dated
  22nd February, 2001 issued by the Union of India.
       2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the
  respondents are/were working as Tower Wagon Drivers (for
C short 'TWO') under the Eastern Railways. They were promoted
  to the said post between the period 1979-1981. These
  respondents claimed running allowance @ 120 k.m. per day
  while on duty in terms of para 3.12 of the New Running
  Allowance Rules - structuring of the cadre. This was not paid
D to them resulting in the filing of a Writ Petition by them before
  the High Court of Calcutta. This Writ Petition was allowed by
  the High Court and the Eastern Railways were directed to pay
  'running allowance' to the respondents. It may be noticed that
  while disposing of that Writ Petition being Civil Petition No.
E 4143 of 1988 and C.O. No. 1812 (W) of 1984 the Court
  passed the following Order:
          "After hearing the Learned Advocates and considering
          their submissions, we feel that a happy solution has been
          arrived at. We thus, after bearing them direct that with four
F
          months from today, the petitioners will be paid at the rate
          of 120 kilo meter per day while on duty in terms of
          paragraph 3.12 of the New Running Allowance Rules -
          structuring of cadre. We also keep it on record that while
          making such payment, authorities will be able and entitled
G
          to adjust the amount, which has already been received by
          the employees concerned on the basis of the works, which
          they have done. The time, we directed, was suggested by
          Mr. Chakrabarty on instructions from Mr. C.B. Chowdhury,
          Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer, Eastern Railway, who
H         was present in Court."
  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JAGDISH PANDEY &                 985
         ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     3. After this allowance had been paid to the respondents,      A
the Eastern Railways passed an order dated 22nd February,
2001 stating that they were granted higher pay scales
inadvertently and the said scale is withdrawn as well as for
recovery of amounts paid in excess of the amounts which ought
to have been paid to the respondents in the lower scale. The        B
correctness of this order was questioned by the respondents
before the Tribunal, submitting that they were granted the pay
scale of Goods Driver vide IVth Pay Commission w.e.f.
1.1.1986. They continued to draw the prescribed pay scale
which was subsequently revised to Rs.5,000 - 8,000/- w.e.f.         c
1.1.1996 in terms of Vth Pay Commission. The order was
arbitrary as the function and duties of the TWDs were similar
to that of the Goods Driver and these posts were treated to be
inter-changeable by the department which passed such orders
of transfer from time to time. Thus, they prayed that they be       D
permitted to withdraw the same pay scale. This application was
contested by Eastern Railways on behalf of the Union of India
and it was stated that the scale was granted by inadvertent
error and they are not entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/
- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and also that they are not equivalent to the      E
Goods Drivers. The matter was examined at some length by
the Tribunal. It was noticed that vide Annexure 'E' to that
application dated 15th April, 1993, the Eastern Railways itself
has stated that all TWDs should be given the grade of Goods
Drivers i.e. Rs.1350-2200/- (unrevised). There is no Railway
Board's circular or order directing that TWDs are not entitled      F
to the pay scale of the Goods Drivers and they are not justified
in taking decision to grant lower pay scales. The respondents
had also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa v. Union of India, [(1998)
8 SCC 154] and Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India,                  G
[(1994) 27 ATC 121].

     4. Referring to the pleadings of the parties and the record
available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not accept the
contention of the Eastern Railways that it was by mistake that      H
    986      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A higher pay scale was given to the respondents as they were
  getting the same pay scales right from the year 1959. The
  Railways had hardly produced any records before the Tribunal
  to justify its decision in down grading the pay scale of the
  respondents and directing the consequential recoveries. It will
B be useful to refer to reasoning given by the Tribunal at this stage
  itself:

          "12. In view of the clear averments made in the OA, which
          have not been specifically rebutted by the respondents, as
          already stated above, and in view of the Railway Board's
c         letter issued in implementation of the Calcutta High Court's
          order, by which the Tower Wagon Drivers were placed in
          the category of Goods Drivers for all purposes, the
          applicants were certainly entitled to have the salary in the
          pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and as a
D         matter of fact, they have been paid salary in the same pay
          scale till the impugned order was issued.

          13. It may also be pointed out that pursuant to the
         acceptance of the 5th Pay Commission Report by the
E        Government, the Tower Wagon Drivers were given the
          salary in the pay scale of Rs.8000-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
          In the letter dated 15.4.1993 (Annexure E), the Sr. OLD/
         TRD/Sealdah, intimated to the Sr. DPC/Sealdah that in
          Sealdah Division, out of 32 Tower Wagon Drivers, 24
F        Tower Wagon Drivers were getting the pay scale of
        · Rs.1350-2200/- and the remaining 8 Tower Wagon Drivers
          were getting the pay scale of Rs.1320-2040/- and
          according to him, all the Tower Van Drivers may be given
          the uniform pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/-. It seems that two
         different pay scales for Tower Van· Drivers were prescribed
G
          because of the fact that prior to 1986, there were two
          different pay scales at the ratio of 60% and 40% for Goods
          Drivers as mentioned above. Be that as it may, it is evident
          that in Sealdah Division also, the Tower Wagon Drivers
          were given the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/- w.e.f 1.1.1986.
H
  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JAGDISH PANDEY & • 987
         ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
   , lt~1s different thing that the order of giving pay scale of   A
     Rs.1350-2200/- was withdrawn by the respondents after
     filing of this O.A.

     14. It is not understood on what basis, the respondents
     decided to discontinue to pay the salary to the Tower         8
     Wagon Drivers in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/-. There
     could be a situation if the Tower Wagon Drivers were not
     considered as part of the "Running Staff' and, therefore,
     their service conditions would be different. Once they have
     been treated as part of the "Running Staff" and they are
   · also performing toe job of driving the Tower Vans/Wagons,     C
     there cannot be any justification not to treat them at par
     with the lower grade of Goods Drivers in the railway.

    15. It is not the case where the respondents claim that the
    pay scale of the Tower Wagon· Drivers has been re-fixed D
    on the basis of some Expert Committee Report. It is
    obvious that the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/- was given
    to the applicants on the basis of some Expert Committee
    Report. It is obvious that the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/-
    was given to the applicants on the basis of the decisioti E
    that they were at par with the Goods Drivers. Now if the ·
    respondents seek to place the applicants in the lower pay
    scale, the burden lies on them to show the basis of taking
    such decision adverse to the interest of Tower Wagon
    Drivers."                                                   F

     5. As already noticed, the challenge to the above order
was not accepted by the High Court and both the issues raised
before the High Court, namely that the case of the Railway was
not considered properly by the Tribunal on merits and secondly,
it had no jurisdiction to examine the said circular as the order G
was passed by the Divisional Railway Manager outside the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal were rejected and while upholding
the order of the Tribunal, the High Court of Calcutta held as ·
under:
                                                                   H
    988      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.

A         "Considering the aforesaid, it is apparent that at all
          relevant time Tower Wagon Drivers are being treated as
          equivalent to Goods Train Drivers. There is no reason
          shown for treating them now differently. Contention of
          authorities refusing to treat the Tower Wagon Drivers
B         equivalent to driver of Goods Train, cannot be accepted.
          If the Tower Wagon Drivers are continuously being treated
          as running staff and equivalent to drivers of goods trains;
          drivers there is no reason shown for which Tower Wagon
          Drivers cannot be refused to be treated as equivalent to
c         the same grade as earlier was being done for a long
          period. The impugned judgments have dealt with the
          relevant aspects appropriately and there is no reason to
          interfere with the same."

       6. The above decision. of the High Court is impugned in
D the present appeal. The basic contention raised on behalf of
  the Union of India before this Court is that the job, duties,
  responsibilities and even essential training required for TWDs
  are not comparable to those of the good train drivers. In
  addition, the contention is also that the scales were granted
E inadvertently and now the competent authority, after due
  application of mind, has passed the order granting lower scales
  to the TWDs in comparison to goods train drivers.

      7. In order to examine the merits of these contentions,
F which obviously are disputed by the respondents, it will be
  appropriate to refer to the order impugned itself which reads
  as under:
                              "Eastern Railway
          Estt. Office Order No. 199/02/Misc.C of 2001
G                                                         (22.02.01)

          With the approval of the competent authority the following
          order are issued to have immediate effect -

                The pay of the following T.W. Drivers of Dhanbad
H
  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JAGDISH PANDEY &                   989
         ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     Division was fixed in scale S. 1350~2900 (RP) w.e.f.             A
     01.01.1996 in IVth PC in the scale Rs. 1350-2200/- (R.P.)
     and scale Rs. 5000-8000/- (RSRP) erroneously for which
     they were not entitled.

         . As such their pay scale is revised to S.1320-2040          8
     (RSRP) w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in IV P.C. and Rs. 4500-7000/
     - (RSRP) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in Vth P .C.

     xxxxxxxxx
     The staff concerned should be ·intimated accordingly"            c
      8. The respondents in the present appeal had challenged
the validity of the above order before the Tribunal on various
grounds including that they have always been placed at parity
with the goods driver, they have been given similar scales and
there was no reason, whatsoever, for altering the pay scale to        D
the prejudice of the respondents, which was in force for a
considerable time. It will be useful for us to notice the findings
recorded by the Tribunal. In paragraph 8 of its judgment the
Tribunal noticed that both the parties have not placed on record
any material to indicate as to what was the pay scale provided        E
for the TWDs pursuant to the various Pay Commission Reports.
The Tribunal specifically noticed and recorded the finding that
for the last 40 years, i.e. right from 1959 the respondents were
being paid the same pay scale as goods drivers. There was
no disparity of pay scales between TWDs and goods drivers             F
after Union of India and Railways had accepted
recommendations of the llnd, lllrd, IVth and even of Vth Pay
Commissions. The Tribunal also specifically noticed vague
denials of the Union of India and that such denials were hardly
substantiated by any cogent material. Reliance was placed             G
upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in relation to the
grant of running allowance. In that Writ Petition, the only dispute
raised by the parties related to the grant of running allowance
and the Union of India did not raise the issue of disparity in pay
scale. This order of the High Court had attained finality. We         H
    990     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 OJ 7 S.C.R.


A have already referred to the findings recorded by the Tribunal
  where it is specifically noticed that after acceptance of Vth Pay
  Commission Report by the Government, TWDs were given the
  salary in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and
  in the letter dated 15.4.1993 the concerned authorities noticed
B the disparity created even between the TWDs i.e. in Sealdah
  division out of 32 TWDs, 24 were getting pay scale of Rs.
  1350-2200 (unrevised) and remaining 8 were getting the pay
  SGale of Rs. 1320-2040 and it directed a uniform pay scale of
  Rs. 1350-2200 should be given to all the TWDs. Another reason
c that weighed with the Tribunal was that no material has been
  produced to show as to what were the reasons or material on
  the basis of which the authorities had decided to discontinue
  the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. to these respondents. The
  above reasoning and discussion in the order of the Tribunal
  clearly shows that the action on the face of it was arbitrary. This
0
  order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the High Court and the
  respondents made no effort to place anything on record to
  show that they were different and distinct classes and were
  entitled to receive different pay scales. Even in the order dated
E 9th August, 2002 the Tribunal specifically noticed that it was not
  even averred that eligibility criteria for the post of TWDs was
  CJifferent than that for the goods driver and their duties were
  substantially different. In other words, either before the Tribunal
  or before the High Court the Union of India never pleaded the
  essential basis for justifying payment of different pay scales to
F two categories of drivers i.e. TWDs on the one hand and goods
  train drivers on the other. There has to be a substantial
  difference in method of recruitment, eligibility, duties and
  responsibilities before substantial disparity in scale can be
  justified. As far as recording of finding of facts is concerned,
G factual disputes can hardly be raised before this Court and in
  any case for the first time. Despite this the Union of India has
  failed to place any material to substantiate its decision before
  the Forum/Courts. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court, in
  relation to running allowances, has attained finality. At that time
H no other issue was raised by Union of India that they are different
  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JAGDISH PANDEY &                     991
         ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
and distinct posts with different pay scales and as such identical      A
running allowances could not be paid. In fact, the judgment of
the Calcutta High Court. has duly been implemented now for
years together without objection. Not only this, same pay scale
as that of the goods train driver has been paid to these
respondents for years and there appears to be no justification          B
on record for unilateral withdrawal of such a scale. Pay scale
is a legitimate right of an employee and except for valid and
proper reasons it cannot be varied.. that too only in accordance
with law. None of these justifiable reasons exist in the present
case. The impugned order Itself does not give any reason. The           c
expression 'erroneously' used in the order can hardly justify
withdrawal of such an existing right.
      9. We may also notice that the respondents had
specifically pleaded and even placed on record certain orders
in which in certain divisions the post of TWO is inter-changeable       D
with goods driver. Ordets have also been placed on record to
show that in differ'ent divisions TWDs are getting different
scales and the Railway Board, as such, has not passed any
final order which is uniformly applicable to all the divisions of
the Railways in India. Of course, this has been disputed by the         E
appellants. The appellants have also attempted to file certain
documents on record to show that the duties of both these
posts are different and even recruitment criteria is different. We
are afraid that this contention cannot be raised for the first time
before this Court. This was expected of the Union of India to           F
raise all these issues before the appropriate forum i.e. the
Tribunal and justify the same. Even before us, these averments
have been made without any supporting data 9r documents to
substantiate such a plea. No comparative chart of the duties
and responsibilities of these two posts, recruitment rules              G
specifying eligibility or selection criteria and working conditions
have been placed on record. The vague averments made to
that effect cannot persuade this Court to disturb the concurrent
findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court.
     10. It is a well settled rule that parties are expected to raise   H
    992     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A specific pleadings before the first forum for adjudication of the
  dispute. Those pleadings are the basis of the case of the
  respective parties even before the appellate/higher Courts. The
  parties would be bound by such pleadings, of course, subject
  to the right of amendment allowed in accordance with law. In
B the present case, no such amendment has been carried out
  even before the High Court and it will be unfair for this Court to
  get into the controversy of factual matrix of the case at this
  stage of the proceedings, particularly, when there exists no
  justification whatsoever on record as to why even these
c averments were not made before the Tribunal and not even
  before the High Court, despite the fact that the Tribunal had
  specifically made comments in this regard in its judgment. Even
  before this Court but for bald averments no documents, data
  or cogent material has been placed for appropriate
  adjudication of the rights of the parties.
0
        11. During the course of arguments this was also brought
  to our notice that most of the respondents in the present appeal
  have already retired from service and there exist no justification
  for effecting any recoveries from their salaries as they have
E already worked and received their salaries as granted by the
  Union of India itself.

       12. For the reasons afore stated, we find no legal infirmity
  in the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court. While
F dismissing this appeal we make it clear that this judgment will
  not affect the right of Union of India to pass an appropriate order
  in relation to the pay scales applicable to any class of its
  employees including the respondents afresh and in accordance
  with law. We do hope that if such an order is passed it will be
  upon proper application of mind and after taking into
G consideration appropriate material and/or data.
         13. The appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear
    their own costs.

H N.J.                                          Appeal dismissed.