JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 2.3.2005 by which the application filed by the respondent was allowed directing the appellant to grant notional pay-scale in the cadre of Clerk Gr. I with effect from the date when his junior was so promoted earlier. The Tribunal further ordered that the pay for the period during which the respondent has actually discharged the duties on the post of Clerk Gr. I, would be revised on the basis of fixation of notional pay and he would be entitled to draw pay and allowances accordingly and in no case his basic pay will be less than the basic pay being drawn by his junior. It was further held that in case the appellant has been superannuated on retirement without having actually performed the duties of Clerk Gr. I, his retrial benefits including the pension will be revised on the basis of such notional fixation of pay. This direction was ordered to be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 2. It is true that in spite of expiry of the period of four months, the benefits as directed were not given to the respondent and an appeal was filed by the petitioner-Union of India merely on the ground of delay in raising this plea at the instance of the respondent. 3. Having perused the order of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the same as it is the settled legal position that if similarly situated persons have been granted some benefits by virtue of a court order after contest, the employees standing on similar or identical footing ordinarily should not be compelled to approach the court afresh for a similar relief. In spite of this, the appellant-Union of India denied this benefit to the respondent due to which he had to file afresh application before the Tribunal for the relief. Therefore, if the Tribunal, after contest and scrutiny of the case of the respondent, held him entitled to the benefit and directed the petitioner-Union of India to grant him his legal dues by putting him on par with the junior person, we find no substance in the plea of the Union of India to challenge the same merely on the ground of delay. In fact the Union of India has also not been able to challenge the correctness of the order in so far as the entitlement of the respondent is concerned. What has been challenged, is that the respondent had moved the Tribunal after unusually long number of years. In our view, the claim of the respondent was a legally subsisting claim and could not have been denied merely on the ground of delay as the petitioner- Union of India ought to have taken care of his legal dues treating him on par with the other similarly situated employees by applying a uniform yardstick without compelling the respondent to move the court of law. Hence, the ground of delay in raising the claim could not have been the reason to hold him disentitle for the relief. We, thus, find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and hence the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.Writ Petition Dismissed At Admission Stage. *******