Judgment :- PASAYAT, C.J. Challenge in this original petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench directing that the pay scale of the respondent is to be fixed in the minimum scale applicable to Group-C employees i.e., Rs. 825-1200 with consequential benefits. Factual aspect needs to be noted in brief. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the employee) at the relevant time was working as lineman in the Electricity Department of Lakshadweep Administration. He was initially in a scale of pay of Rs. 210-290 and held a Group-C post, according to the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986. When the pay scales wore revised in accordance with recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission, the employee was given a revised scale of Rs. 800-1150 which was the highest pay scale of a Group-D post and he was not granted the scale of Rs. 825-1200 which was the minimum scale of the Group-C post. Same was questioned before the tribunal. Stand before the Tribunal was that similar posts in the same scale of Rs. 210-290 have been placed in the scale of Rs. 825-1200 after revision. Accordingly prayer was made for grant of such scale. Present petitioners, (hereinafter referred to as the employer), took the stand that though the post of lineman held by the employee was In Group-C, he was being paid in the scale of Rs. 800-1150 i.e., at the scale corresponding to Rs. 210-290 held by him earlier. Tribunal held that it is classification of the post which is relevant and not the old scale corresponding to which the new scale is fixed. Learned counsel for the employer submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. What is relevant is the scale of pay earlier and the revised scale of pay and not the nomenclature of the post held. According to the learned counsel for the employee, the Pay Commission recommendations are not binding unless accepted by the concerned Government and that being the position, the Tribunal's directions are in order.Classification of posts has nothing to do with the fixation of pay scales. It only classifies posts into several groups based upon the pay scales already fixed. Classification and prescription of pay scales for several posts are two different and distinct functions. It only classifies posts into several groups based upon the pay scales already fixed. Classification and prescription of pay scales for several posts are two different and distinct functions. This position was amply elaborated by the Apex Court in Union of India v. P. V. Hariharan 1997 3 SCC 568. As was observed in the said case, the Pay Commission which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon the issue and the Tribunal should not interfere such matters, as they are to be considered by the Pay Commission. Order of the Tribunal is clearly indefensible, and is quashed. Original petition is allowed. Petition allowed.