Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. O.V. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. With regard to the question relating to the scale of pay applicable to the concerned employee/first respondent, the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, by relying upon the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi dated 25.05.2007, has observed that the employees are entitled to receive their salary in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13,500/- and the refixation of salary by Office Memorandum by reducing the same is not proper and there cannot be recovery of any amount already paid to the employees. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for both parties that the decision of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court, is now pending consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No.1840 of 2008, wherein the Supreme Court while entertaining the said special leave appeal, ordered partial stay of the order passed by the Delhi High Court. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, it is obvious that ultimately the question of entitlement and question of refund of excess amount if any, would depend upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid special leave appeal and we do not feel that any useful purpose would be served by merely keeping the writ petition pending. As suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, we feel that interest of justice would be served by holding that ultimately the question of entitlement as well as question of recovery would be squarely governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the said special leave appeal and in the meantime there should not be any recovery from the concerned employee/first respondent. 5. It is stated that in the meantime the employee/first respondent has retired, but the pensionary benefits have not been settled because of the pendency of the dispute. It is, therefore, further observed that without prejudice to the contentions of the first respondent, his pension may be calculated and paid to him on the basis of the revised scale of pay as per the office memorandum. It is, therefore, further observed that without prejudice to the contentions of the first respondent, his pension may be calculated and paid to him on the basis of the revised scale of pay as per the office memorandum. However, in case, ultimately it is found that such person is entitled for higher pay by virtue of the fixation of the scale of pay under the Rules and his contention is accepted by the Supreme Court, the Department would be obliged to pay the differential amount to the first respondent at that stage. This may be implemented within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above observation the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.