: 1 : 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.2373 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.2373 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.2373 OF 2006 Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus R.S.Sandhu .. Respondent. Mr.V.S.Masurkar i/b.Mrs.N.V.Masurkar for the petitioners. Mr.G.K.Masand i/b.Mr.S.R.Sawant for respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 1st July, 2008. DATE : 1st July, 2008. DATE : 1st July, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.11.2005 in Original Application No.842 of 2000. 2. It is common ground that the facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts involved in Writ Petition No.2535 of 2003 - Union of India & Ors. v/s. Union of India & Ors. v/s. Union of India & Ors. v/s. Jagdish Narayanrao Khisti decided on 25.6.2004. Jagdish Narayanrao Khisti decided on 25.6.2004. Jagdish Narayanrao Khisti decided on 25.6.2004. It is also common ground that by that judgement, the Division Bench of this Court upheld the order passed by the C.A.T. The only submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in the judgement of Jagdish Jagdish Jagdish Khisti (supra), Khisti (supra), Khisti (supra), the Division Bench has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of Union of Union of : 2 : India v/s. G. Vasudevan Pillay & Ors. reported in India v/s. G. Vasudevan Pillay & Ors. reported in India v/s. G. Vasudevan Pillay & Ors. reported in 1995(1) S.C.C. 396. 1995(1) S.C.C. 396. 1995(1) S.C.C. 396. Mr.G.Vasudevan’s case (supra), according to the petitioner was in relation to the 4th pay commission whereas in the present case, it was 5th pay commission and, therefore, the Division Bench would have considered the Memorandum issued in the year 1987. According to the learned Counsel, the Division Bench has committed an error in relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Vasudevan (supra). 3. Perusal of the judgement of the Division Bench shows that the Division Bench was relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court and was dealing with the situation that the Supreme Court in Vasudevan’s case was dealing with 4th pay commission and the Memorandum issued after 4th pay commission whereas the Division Bench was dealing with 5th pay commission and the Memorandum issued thereafter. 4. In our opinion, it will be proper for this Bench to follow the law laid down by the Division Bench in Jagdish’s (supra) case. We have not been pointed out any significant difference in the Memorandum issued after 4th pay commission and the 5th pay commission. It is common ground that if we follow the judgement of the Division : 3 : Bench in Jagdish’s case, then, the petition will have to be dismissed. 5. After having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and after having gone through the judgement and the record, we find that it will be proper for this Bench to follow the law which is laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Khisti (supra). 6. In the result, the present petition fails. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)