Vijender Jain ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of respondent no. 2 Govt,of N. C. T. of Delhi fixing the pay scale for the post of Chief Administrative officer-cum-Deputy Controller of Accounts in the office of District and Sessions Judge from 13. 9. 2000 instead of 25. 9. 1987,: Mr Inderjit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that one post of Chief Administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Controller of accounts was created in the District Court in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 w. e. f. 1. 3. 1991 , however, the said post remained vacant from 1. 3. 1991 to 24. 9. 1997. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT no. 2-Delhi High Court appointed the petitioner on 25. 9. 1997 as Chief Administrative officer-curn-Deputy Controller of Accounts. In the meanwhile, while implementing the order of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal no. 7625/1994 the Central Government revised the pay scale of Superintendent which was the feeder post for the post of Chief Administrative officer-cum-Deputy Controller of Accounts w. e. f. 12. 8. 1997 (i) from Rs. 550-900 to Rs. 775-1200; and (ii) w. e. f,1. 1. 1986 to Rs. 3000-4500. ( 4 ) THE anomaly arose from 5. 3. 1991 when the scale of pay attached to both the posts i. e. Superintendent and chief Administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Controller of accounts became identical w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996 Rs. 3000-4500 and after the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission rs, 10000-15200. ( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, respondent no. 1 in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court created four posts of administrative Officer in the scale of Rs. 12000-16500. As new posts were created by the respondents of administrative Officer, respondent no. 2 on a reference from respondent no. 3 recommended to respondent no. 1 for revision of pay scale for the post of Chief administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Controller of Accounts w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996. Pursuant to the said reference from respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1 revised the pay scale to rs. 12750-16500 w. e. f. 13. 9. 2000. ( 6 ) MR. SHALL has contended that as to from which date the revised pay scale was to be made applicable has to be left to the discretion of specialised body like the govt. Pursuant to the said reference from respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1 revised the pay scale to rs. 12750-16500 w. e. f. 13. 9. 2000. ( 6 ) MR. SHALL has contended that as to from which date the revised pay scale was to be made applicable has to be left to the discretion of specialised body like the govt. of N. C. T. and this court will not interfere while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Even if I agree to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, the specialised body in this case would be High Court of delhi and the High Court of Delhi has recommended that the revised pay scale may be granted to the post of Chief administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Controller of Accounts from 1. 3. 1996, The grant of revised pay scale to the post aforesaid from 13. 9. 2000 is without any basis. The contention of Mr, Shali is that this has been granted from 13. 9. 2000 as anomaly has arisen on account, of creation of four posts of Administrative Officer pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court, this argument is without any basis. The anomaly was first created on 1. 3. 1991 when the scale of pay for both the posts i. e. Superintendent, which was a feeder post for the post of chief Administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Controller of accounts, and Chief Administrative Officer-cum-Deputy controller of Accounts became identical and then on 1. 1. 1996 when the pay attached to both the aforesaid posts became identical. Therefore, the anomaly has to be corrected from those dates. But, admittedly, as petitioner has neither worked as Chief Administrative officer-cum-Deputy Controller of Accounts from 1. 3. 1991 or from 1. 1. 1996, that pay scale cannot be granted to the petitioner from those dates. The petitioner became the chief Administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Controller of accounts w. e. f. 25. 9. 1997 and, therefore, th. e revised pay scale to the petitioner has to be given effect from 25. 9. 1997. The creation of the posts of Administrative officer has nothing to do with regard to giving of revised pay scale to the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 has already given revised pay scale to the petitioner from 13. 9. 2000. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I direct respondent no. 9. 1997. The creation of the posts of Administrative officer has nothing to do with regard to giving of revised pay scale to the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 has already given revised pay scale to the petitioner from 13. 9. 2000. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I direct respondent no. 2 to give the revised scale of pay i. e. Rs. l2750-Rs. 16500 w. e. f. 25. 9. 1997 to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, impugned letter dated 30. 1. 2002 is quashed and notification be issued by the respondent no. 1 within four weeks. Rule is made absolute. ( 8 ) PETITION stands disposed of accordingly.