Judgment :- S. Tamilvanan, J. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second and third respondents respectively in No.U/P 353/OA 644 of 2002, dated 17.06.2003 and O.A.No.677 of 2004, dated 29.07.2005 and quash the same as illegal, irregular, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and also to direct the second respondent to re-fix the pension payable to the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. It is seen that by order dated 29.07.2005, the said Original Application No.677 of 2004 was dismissed by the third respondent – Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner / applicant. .3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : .The writ petitioner / applicant before the Tribunal was appointed as Ticket Examiner on 111. 1950 in the Southern Railway and retired as Chief Travelling Ticker Inspector on 30.06.1986 on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the writ petitioner, one Sri.K.Natarajan, who was stated to be junior to the petitioner, was promoted on the same day when the petitioner was promoted, i.e., on 01.01.1984. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was senior to him, as he was placed below the said Sri. K.Natarajan in the list of promotion, his pension was also calculated and paid less than the amount being paid to the said Sri. K.Natarajan. 4. As per the reply statement filed before the Tribunal, it has been admitted that the writ petitioner and the said Sri. K.Natarajan were promoted as Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors on the same day, with effect from 01.01.1984. It is further stated therein that by order, dated 08.06.1984 because of the policy of decentralization, the senior most 16 Chief Travelling Inspectors in the scale of Rs.550-750 were given promotion. .5. Mr. V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner / applicant would contend that though the pay scale of the petitioner was originally fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.550-750, for some other similarly placed persons, the scale was fixed at Rs.700-900. 6. The scale of pay originally fixed and regularized is not in dispute before us, in this writ petition. 7. 6. The scale of pay originally fixed and regularized is not in dispute before us, in this writ petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner / applicant further contended that the respondents 1 and 2 have admitted in their reply filed before the Tribunal that both the writ petitioner and the said Sri. K.Natarajan were promoted to the same cadre on 01.01.1984 with same pay scale and hence, the petitioner is also entitled to get the same monetary benefit and other emoluments, as that of his aforesaid junior. 8. It is relevant to note that earlier, the petitioner herein filed O.A.No.644 of 2002 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the same by quashing the order, dated 28.01.2002 and directed the respondents therein to rework the pension of the applicant in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations of the Tribunal in O.A.No.644 of 2002 as well as the order passed in O.A.No.901 of 1997. Subsequently, by order dated 17.06.2003, the second respondent fixed the pension, payable to the petitioner at Rs.1,078/-, which was challenged before the Tribunal. 9. According to the petitioner, the respondents have committed serious error by fixing his pay at Rs.2,120/- from 01.01.1986 and Rs.2,180/-from 01.03.1986. According to him, the said fixation was not in accordance with the fixation of pay rule No.9 of the RB.No.PC.IV/86/RSRP/1, dated 19.09.1996. He has further stated that he was drawing Rs.760/- from 01.03.1986 and hence his pay should be Rs.2,240/- in the revised scale and not Rs.2,180/- and thereby his pay was not protected, though the same was indicated by the Tribunal, by order, dated 06.08.1999 in O.A.No.901 of 1997. According to the petitioner, the earlier fixation of Rs.2,240/- from 01.01.1986 and Rs.2,300/-from 01.03.1986 was stuck off by the respondents without proper reasoning. 10. In the reply statement filed by the respondent 1 and 2 before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.677 of 2004, it has been admitted that Sri. K.Natarajan, along with 24 other Travelling Ticket Inspectors were given promotion as Chief Travelling Inspector in scale of Rs.550-750/- with effect from 01.01.1984 consequent to the restructuring of the Ticket checking cadre officials. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was also given promotion as Chief Travelling Inspector in the scale of Rs.550-750/-with effect from 01.01.1984 along with Sri.K.Natarajan, who was referred to by the petitioner, as his junior. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was also given promotion as Chief Travelling Inspector in the scale of Rs.550-750/-with effect from 01.01.1984 along with Sri.K.Natarajan, who was referred to by the petitioner, as his junior. Subsequently, the post of Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector Gr.II in scale of Rs.550-750/- and Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector in the scale of Rs.700-900/-, which were hitherto controlled by Headquarters at Chennai were decentralized by the order in Letter No.P(S) 529/III/60, dated 09.04.1984 and 19.05.1984 respectively. On account of the said decentralization, senior most 16 Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors in the scale of Rs.550-750/- including the petitioner and the aforesaid Sri.K.Natarajan were given further promotion by order, dated 08.06.1984, with effect from the aforesaid date. In the reply statement at paragraph 16, the respondents 1 and 2 have stated as follows : “It is not a fact that Sri.K.Natarajan alone was given promotion as Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector Gr.I in scale Rs.700-900/-. Hence, the action of the respondents is well with the framework of rules.” .11. According to the respondents 1 and 2, though the petitioner was initially appointed as Ticket Examiner on 111. 1950 and Sri.K.Natarajan was appointed subsequently and as such, he was junior to the petitioner herein, but he was given promotions in appreciation of his sporting excellence, since he was a celebrated sprinter and won laurels for the country by winning gold medal in Asian games, held at Bangkok during the year 1978. However, in the reply statement filed by the respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal, at paragraph 16, it has been clearly admitted that 24 Travelling Ticket Inspectors were given promotion, including the petitioner and Sri.K.Natarajan, as Chief Travelling Inspector in scale Rs.550-750/- with effect from 01.01.1984. Similarly, it has been stated that the post of Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector Gr.II in scale of Rs.550-750/- and Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector in scale of Rs.700-900/-, which posts hitherto controlled by Headquarters, Chennai were decentralized by Letter NO.P(S) 529/III/60, dated 09.04.1984 and 19.05.1984 respectively and because of the decentralization, the senior most 16 Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors in scale of Rs.550-750/- were given further promotion, by order, dated 08.06.1984. The respondents 1 and 2 have stated that 16 Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors Gr.II, including the petitioner and Sri.K.Natarajan were promoted as Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors Gr.I in scale of Rs.700-900/-. The respondents 1 and 2 have stated that 16 Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors Gr.II, including the petitioner and Sri.K.Natarajan were promoted as Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors Gr.I in scale of Rs.700-900/-. It has not been stated by the respondents 1 and 2 that the said Sri.K.Natarajan was promoted in the sports quota, but on seniority basis. It has been categorically stated in the reply statement that 16 senior most officials were given promotion as Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors, Gr.II. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was senior to Sri.K.Natarajan, while 24 Travelling Ticket Inspectors were given promotion as Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors with effect from 01.01.1984. 13. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even if there was any higher start of pay to any particular candidate, it will not bestow him any benefit in seniority. According to him, being senior, the petitioner had every right to demand equal pay from the date of his promotion on 01.01.1984, on par with his junior Sri.K.Natarajan, as per R.B.No.PV-III/80/SG/&, dated 16.05.1983 (stepping up as a result of introduction of selection grades), for which the Tribunal accepted the fresh demand and allowed the O.A.No.644 of 2002. He has further contended that the said Sri.K.Natarajan’s pay was fixed at Rs.730/- on 01.01.1984 increased to Rs.760/- on 01.01.1985, Rs.795/- on 01.01.1986 plus notional pay of Rs.35/- was added with effect from 01.01.1986 as per Railway Board’s order, dated 04.05.1987 and thereby he was drawing Rs.830/- from 01.01.1986, whereas the petitioner herein was promoted on 25.06.1985 in the scale of Rs.700-900/- and was drawing Rs.730/- on 01.01.1986, hence, the petitioner’s pay should be stepped up and accordingly, the pension has to be computed and paid. .14. It cannot be disputed that the senior official cannot claim any special pay, if any being paid to a junior official, on the ground of his recognized sporting excellence. However, the seniority cannot be refixed in the same cadre on the ground of sporting excellence. Here, in the instance case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein had joined the service as Ticket Examiner on 111. 1950 and the aforesaid Sri.K.Natarajan joined in service only on 112. 1968. Both were given promotion as Travelling Ticket Inspectors along with others as Chief Travelling Inspectors in scale of Rs.550-750/- with effect from 01.01.1984. Here, in the instance case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein had joined the service as Ticket Examiner on 111. 1950 and the aforesaid Sri.K.Natarajan joined in service only on 112. 1968. Both were given promotion as Travelling Ticket Inspectors along with others as Chief Travelling Inspectors in scale of Rs.550-750/- with effect from 01.01.1984. As per the reply statement filed by the respondents 1 and 2, on account of decentralization, 16 Chief Travelling Ticket Inspectors in scale of Rs.550-750/- were given promotion, by order, dated 08.06.1984, as they were the senior most officials in the feeder category. The same has been clearly admitted in the reply statement filed by the respondents 1 and 2. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service as Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector on 30.06.1986. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to claim his pay on par with his junior and accordingly, the pension payable to him has to be fixed by the authorities, namely the respondents 1 and 2. 15. We are of the considered view that since the respondents 1 and 2 have admitted that both the writ petitioner and the aforesaid Sri. K. Natarajan were promoted to the same cadre on 01.01.1984, they cannot be discriminated in pay scale, as the same would be construed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is apparent that the petitioner was not paid his salary on par with the aforesaid Sri.K.Natarajan, though the petitioner was equally placed and also senior to the aforesaid person. Despite the aforesaid admitted facts, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this vital aspect has not been legally considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in passing the impugned order, under challenge before us and therefore, we are of the considered view that the writ petition has to be allowed. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated 29.07.2005 and the order of the second respondent, dated 17.06.2003 are set aside. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to re-fix the petitioner’s pension on par with the pay of his immediate junior Sri.K.Natarajan, as per law and such an exercise shall be carried out within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.