IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5302 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 5302 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 5302 OF 2003 Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Dr.Shirnath Pandey ...Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Petitioners. Mr.Saikumar Ramamurthy for the Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 11, 2008 DATED : MARCH 11, 2008 DATED : MARCH 11, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioner - Union of India challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 15th November, 2002 in Original Application No. 329 of 1997. That application was filed by the respondent challenging the communication dated 7th January, 1997. The CAT has set aside that communication dated 7th January, 1997. 2. Admitted facts are that the pay fixation of the respondent was done in the year 1988. He actually retired from the Government Service on 31st January, 1996. Nearly a year after, the Government by letter dated 7th January, 1997 said that they had committed a - 2 - mistake in doing pay fixation of the petitioner in the year 1988. The CAT has given cogent reasons in its order analysing that pay fixation done initially was not wrong. In our opinion, even otherwise, Government was not justified in doing pay fixation again which was adverse to the interest of the Government servants after that Government servants had retired. The pay fixation was done in the year 1988 and it could have been corrected within reasonable time. That was not done. The Government allowed the respondent to retire from service. Even at that juncture, nothing was done. After the year of retirement of Government servant, without issuing any Show Cause Notice and without giving him any opportunity of being heard, the Government reduced his pay scale right from 1988. No exception can be taken to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. We find no substance in the petition. 3. Petition fails. It is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) - 3 - (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)