Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application in O.A.No.706 of 2008 made by the second respondent was ordered. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. It is not in controversy that the second respondent joined the service in the Income Tax Department as Assistant and promoted to the post of Inspector of Income Tax by order dated 26.6.2001. Within a short while, on 29.6.2001, she was promoted as Office Superintendent and she also joined the said post. But again, she joined as Inspector of Income Tax on 30.6.2001. Her pay was fixed as per FR 23(1)(a)(i). After lapse of 5 years, the petitioners issued an order on 16.2.2006 refixing her pay as Rs. 5500 - 9000 to Rs.5000 – 8000 from 1.7.2006 onwards and thereafter, they claim for recovery of the excess amount paid to her on the basis that there was wrong fixation of pay. The same was challenged by the second respondent. The contentions putforth by the Department were also heard. The Tribunal took the view that the case of the second respondent was to be accepted and allowed her application. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would submit that the second respondent joined duty as an Assistant in the Income Tax Department in the year 2001. She was originally promoted as Inspector on 26.6.2001 and she joined the post of Inspector. Thereafter, she was recommended to be promoted as Office Superintendent by order dated 29.6.2001 and she joined the post of Office Superintendent. But on the very next day, leaving the said post of Office Superintendent, she joined as Inspector on 30.6.2001 onwards. At that time, both the posts of Inspector and the Officer Superintendent are equal in cadre, having the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. But in the year 2004, the pay of Inspector was increased to the pay scale of Rs.6500 – 10500, on the basis of which, she claimed the pay scale and she has been paid. She also attained superannuation in the year 2009. When the matter was pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, she was in service. But in the year 2004, the pay of Inspector was increased to the pay scale of Rs.6500 – 10500, on the basis of which, she claimed the pay scale and she has been paid. She also attained superannuation in the year 2009. When the matter was pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, she was in service. So far as the refund of the excess payment is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was wrong calculation of pay which cannot be maintained and insofar as the fixation of pensionary benefits is concerned, she has claimed that she was originally posted as Inspector and thereafter, she became as Office Superintendent and therefore, on that basis, she has got to be considered for two higher scales, to which, she is not entitled to. The original application putforth by the second respondent should have been rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, it is a fit case for admission and the matter should be enquired into and orders have to be passed. 5. After hearing the counsel and looking into the materials available, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case even for admission since it does not carry any merits whatsoever. 6. It is not in controversy that on the date when the second respondent was working as Assistant, she was promoted as Inspector of Income Tax on 26.6.2001 and she joined the said post also. Shortly thereafter, due to the recommendation made by DPC, she was promoted as Office Superintendent on 29.6.2001 and she joined the said post. Admittedly, both the posts were of the equal cadre and carry the same scale of pay on that date. Thereafter, leaving the post of Office Superintendent, she again joined and continued in the post of Inspector of Income Tax. The same was allowed by the petitioners and she was working as such from 30.6.2001 onwards. 7. The order under challenge came to be passed in the year 2006, nearly after a lapse of 5 ½ years. Thereafter, leaving the post of Office Superintendent, she again joined and continued in the post of Inspector of Income Tax. The same was allowed by the petitioners and she was working as such from 30.6.2001 onwards. 7. The order under challenge came to be passed in the year 2006, nearly after a lapse of 5 ½ years. Having allowed the second respondent to work as Inspector of Income Tax and passing the order on 16.12.2006 i.e., after a period of 5 years would go to show that there is not only laches but once she was permitted to work as Inspector of Income Tax all along the period, there is no question of refixation of pay which was available to Office Superintendent for the period for which she had worked as Inspector of Income Tax. Admittedly, in the year 2004, the scale of pay for Inspector of Income Tax was raised and fixed at Rs.6500-10500 to which she was eligible. In the above circumstances, the order made, for refixation of pay and also for the refund of amount, cannot be sustained. Once, the second respondent had joined the post as Inspector of Income Tax which was equal to the cadre of Office Superintendent in the year 2001 itself and having allowed her to work all along the period and now, making an order of refixation of pay as if she was entitled to get the pay scale of Office Superintendent would be detriment to her. The stand taken by the Department, in the considered opinion of the Court, is against its own order. Under such circumstances, the writ petition does not carry any merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.