.{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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2680 OF 2007 Union of India and Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Shri A.P.Pawar. ..Respondent. .. Mr.Ravi Shetty, Adv. a/w. N.R.Prajapati, Adv. for the Petitioners. S.P. Saxena, Adv. with S.G. Pillai, Adv. for the Respondent. .. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2008. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2008. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard. 2. This Petition is in respect of Productivity Linked Incentive to be payable to the officers who are on deputation to AIR India. There is no dispute that under the AIR Service Rules the employees are entitled to it. Only because the officers are on deputation from other Government departments they are deprived of the PLI payments. This shows the manner .{2}. in which the regular PLI payments are being avoided. If the appointed person is directly appointed the respondents are bound to give him PLI. However, PLI is not paid to persons who are taken on deputation. Infact if the person equally situated under the same Management is getting the PLI payments, the Management is bound to pay the same pay to the employees on deputation who are equally situated. The Central Administrative Tribunal has taken proper view of the matter. No interference is required. Therefore, the Petition is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.]