S.K.Krishnan, J.: This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, passed in O.A.No.860 of 2001 dated 26.2.2002. 2. The case of the petitioners, in-brief, is as follows: (a) The pay of all pre-1986 retirees were up-dated by notional fixation as on 1.1.1986 and the notional pay so arrived at was treated as average emoluments for the purpose of calculation of pension and the pension was then consolidated as on 1.1.1996 in accordance with the provision of Para. 4.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.1997. (b) The notional pay of the Accounts Officer, whose date of retirement is prior to 1.1.1986, was fixed at Rs.3,000 by virtue of the O.M. dated 10.2.1998 and 19.12.2000 and their pension was fixed at Rs.1,650 (Rs.3300/2) and the same was consolidated at Rs.4,967 with effect from 1.1.1996. (c) Likewise, the pension of the second and third respondents were consolidated at Rs.4331 and Rs.4669 with effect from 1.1.1996 respectively and thereby they have been drawing Rs.636 and Rs.298 per month respectively lesser pension amount than the pensioners, who retired prior to 1986. (d) In the case of pre-1986 retirees, the notional pay as on 1.1.1986 was taken as average emol-uments, whereas in the case of those retired during the period from 1.1.1986 to 30.9.1986 part of pre-revised pay and part of revised pay was taken as average emoluments as per the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. (e) In fact, for the persons retired during the period from 1.1.1996 to 30.9.1996, the Govern-ment allowed a notional increase by 40% in their basic pay in the pre-revised scale i.e.upto 31.12.1995 by an order dated 18.10.1999. Since the same analogy was not followed in the case of the persons retired during the period from 1.1.1986 to 30.9.1986 which resulted in the said anomaly, the respondents 1 to 4 filed an application in O.A.No.860 of 2001 before the fifth respondent challenging the point number.3 in O.M.No.45/86/97-P&PW(A), dated 19.12. 2000 issued by the Government of India. 3. The fifth respondent/Tribunal, after con-sidering the materials placed before it, has allo-wed the said application. 4. Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioners, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, have filed this writ petition. 5. 2000 issued by the Government of India. 3. The fifth respondent/Tribunal, after con-sidering the materials placed before it, has allo-wed the said application. 4. Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioners, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, have filed this writ petition. 5. In the common counter filed by the respondents, it is mainly stated that in the case of retirees prior to 1.1.1986 notional pay as on 1.1.1986 was taken as average emoluments, whereas in the case of the respondents, who retired during the period from 1.1.1986 to 30.9.1986, the average emoluments was reckoned based on part of pre-revised pay and part of revised pay as per the Fifth Central Pay Commission for computing the average emoluments. 6. Heard the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.860 of 2001 dated 26.2.2002 is liable to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 8. It is an admitted fact that the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the following reliefs: (a) To set aside the orders issued by way of clarification to point 3 of the OM of 19.12.2000. (b) To revise the formula in the calculation of pension from 1.1.1986 for the purpose of determining the pension entitlement of the applicants which will not be less than the pension drawn by pre-1986 retirees. 9. After considering the materials on record, the Tribunal accepted the plea of the respondents and thereby issued the following directions: (a) That portion of the clarification issued In respect of point No.3 in the O.M. of Government of India in No.45/86/97-P&PW(A), dated 19.12.2000 is quashed. (b) The respondents are directed to reconsider the formula in the calculation of pension from 1.1.1986 for the purpose of determining the pension entitlement of the applicants which will not be less than the pension drawn by the pre-1986 retirees. This exercise shall be completed and any arrears arising out of such revision of pension shall be paid to the applicants within three months of receipt of a copy of this order by them. 10. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners herein approached this court for quashing the same. 11. This exercise shall be completed and any arrears arising out of such revision of pension shall be paid to the applicants within three months of receipt of a copy of this order by them. 10. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners herein approached this court for quashing the same. 11. The main grievance of the respondents 1 to 4 is that they have been discriminated by con-solidating their pension amount lesser than Pre-1986 retirees . 12. It is contended by the respondents 1 to 4 before the Tribunal as well as this Court that they have not been given the pension on par with the pensioners, who have retired in the same post prior to 1.1.1986. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Fifth Central Pay Com-mission had recommended that the pension of pre-1986 retirees may be updated by notional fixation of their pay as on 1.1.1986 (date on which the fourth pay commission’s recomm-endations were given effect) as though they were in service on that date (1.1.1986) to bri-ng them on par with the post-1986 retirees. Accordingly, 50% of the notional pay was fixed for all pre-1986 retirees. However, notional pay was fixed at 50% of ten months’ average emoluments for post-1986 retirees, which resulted in drawing lesser pension than the pre- 1986 retirees. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the difference in drawing the pension in respect of the persons who retired between 1.1.1996 to 30.9.1996 and pre-1.1.1996 was considered and such anomaly was removed by notional increase of 40% in basic pay in the pre-revised pay scale, i.e., upto 31.12.1995. Such notional increase was not allowed in respect of the persons retired during the period from 1.1.1986 to 31.9.1986. 15. In this regard, the learned counsel app-earing for the petitioners would contend that after considering the claim of the respondents and also the persons alike, when the first peti-tioner issued a clarification, in its Office Mem-orandum,dated 19.12.2000, stating that no changes in pension formula are being proposed in respect of calculation of pension of Govern-ment servants who retired between January and September, 1986, the claim of the respondents cannot be accepted as there is no discrimination. 16. 16. It is an admitted fact that the respondents 1 to 4 retired from service between 1.1.1986 and 30.9.1986 It is also an admitted fact that they are getting lesser pension than pre-1986 retirees. 17. On a perusal of the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, dated 10.2.1998, it is revealed that on the basis of the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the Government of India decided to update the pension of pre-1986 retirees by fixing notional pay as on 1.1.1986 by adopting the same formula as for the serving employees and thereafter for the purpose of consolidation of their pension/family pension as on 1.1.1986, they may be treated alike those who have retired on or after 1.1.1986. 18. From the above, it is clear that as far as pre-1986 retirees, on the basis of the recom-mendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commis-sion, the Government of India has taken the above said policy decision and in such cir-cumstances, this Court cannot interfere with such policy decision. 19. In the above circumstances, the respondents 1 to 4 cannot make any claim comparing with the pension of pre-1986 retirees. When it is not their case that they have been discriminated by not following the pension formula prescribed under Rule 34 of the pension Rules, we cannot accept their claim that they are receiving lesser pension than the pre-1986 retirees for the reasons stated above. 20. Likewise, the respondents cannot claim any benefit in respect of pension on par with the retirees from 1.1.1996 to 30.9.1996 as the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India clearly provides such benefit to them. In the absence of any such provision in the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, dated 10.2.1998, the respondents are not entitled to claim any benefit in respect of pension on par with anybody in the absence of any non-violation of prescribed pension rules. 21. Further, considering the anomaly in calculation of pension of those who retired between 1.1.1986 and 30.9.1986, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, by its Office Memorandum, dated 19.12.2000, clarified the same under point No.3 as follows: 3. 21. Further, considering the anomaly in calculation of pension of those who retired between 1.1.1986 and 30.9.1986, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, by its Office Memorandum, dated 19.12.2000, clarified the same under point No.3 as follows: 3. Anomaly in calculation I of pension of those who retired between 1.1.1986 and 30.9.1986 In view of the notional fixation of pay as on 1.1.1986, consolidation thereafter of the basic pension and stepping up this pension to wherever it is less than 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay to 50% of the minimum of the revised scale on 1.1.1986, no changes in pension formula are being proposed in respect of calculation of pension of Govt. Servants who retired between Jan. and Sept. 1986.“ 22. In the above circumstances, when we do not find any violation in following the rules prescribed under the Pension Rules and the same was ascertained by the Government in its said clarification, it is not proper to give direction to suit the claim of the respondents. 23. Further, in support of their contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decision. 24. In Secretary, Finance Department and others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others , (1993)1 S.C.C.(Supp) 153, the Supreme Court observed as follows: ”12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily Courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department; (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him; (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions; (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties; (v) the extent of powers vested in him; (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers; (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other departments, etc., We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalization of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay struc-ture is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifi-cations required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer’s capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evol-ving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court’s interference is absolutely nece- ssary to undo the injustice. [Italics supplied] 25. The principles laid down in the above decision are squarely applicable to the case on hand. 26. In the above circumstances, we cannot accept that the principle laid down in D.S.Nakara v. Union of India, (1983)1 S.C.C.305, are squarely applicable to the case on hand as contended by the respondents, while considering the case relied on by the petitioners in Indian Ex-Services League and others v. Union of India,(1991)2 S.C.C.104, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows: "12 ... It was clearly stated that ‘if the pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later’, This according to us is the decision in Nakara 1 and no more. 13. Ordinarily, it would suffice to mention the gist of D.S Nakara v. Union of India, (1983)1.S.C.C.305, decision without extensively quoting therefrom. However, we have done so for the reason that the impassioned plea of Shri G.Viswanatha Iyer. learned counsel appearing for the Army Officers which was reiterated with an added emotive appeal by Shri K.L.Rathee, appearing for the remaining ranks of Armed Forces seems to suggest that denial of petitioner’s claim amounts to misreading the D.S.Nakara v. Union of India, decision and refusal of the logical relief flowing therefrom. It is only to dispel this incorrect impression we have quoted from Nakara at some length. It is only to dispel this incorrect impression we have quoted from Nakara at some length. We have merely to decide whether the petitioners claim flows from the decision in Nakara and we are unable to find anything in Nakara to support such claim. 14. D.S.Nakara v. Union of India, (1983)1 S.C.C.305, decision came up for consideration before another Constitution Bench recently in Krishna Kumar v. Union of India,(1990)1 S.C.C.207. The petitioners in that case were retired Railway employees who were covered by or opted for the Railway Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It was held that PF retirees and pension retirees constitute different classes and it was never held in Nakara that pension retirees and PF retirees formed a homogeneous class, even though pension retirees alone did constitute a homogeneous class, within which any further classification for the purpose of a liberalized pension scheme was impermissible. It was pointed out that in Nakara it was never required to be decided that all the retirees for all purposes formed one class and no further classification was permissible. We have referred to this decision merely to indicate that another Constitution Bench of this Court also has read Nakara v. Union of India , decision as one of limited application and there is no scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all claims made by the pension retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree from the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement, even though the reckonable emoluments, for the purpose of computation of their pension be different." [Italics supplied] 27. In the light of the discussions held above and following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the Order of the fifth respondent, dated 26.2.2002 is not sustainable under law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 28. In result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of the fifth respondent dated 26.2.2002. No costs. Connected W.P.M.P. is closed.