ORDER 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order F.No.A.32016/12/99-EW, dated 19.02.2003, declining the request of petitioner for grant of pay scale of Rs.425-700 notionally from 01.01.1973 and with financial benefits with effect from 29.07.1978. 2. The petitioner, a Senior Superintendent, Draftsman (Retired), was working with the Airport Authority of India Limited, Southern Region, Chennai. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2002. 3. The petitioner, after passing SSLC, was issued certificate by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment for having passed the prescribed trade test in Draftsman (Civil) through the Industrial Institute at Guindy in the year 1962 to 1964. The petitioner was also awarded certificate for having undergone the Elementary Course of training in Commercial Management in the Industrial Institute of Training, Guindy, from December 1963 to April 1964. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Tracer in the Office of the Controller of Communication, Madras Region, Civil Aviation Department, Government of India, Chennai on 31.12.1964. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Draftsman on 12.11.1969. He was deputed to the National Airport Authority, Chennai Airport, Chennai on 01.06.1986, and thereafter permanently absorbed in the National Airport Authority, Chennai, on 02.10.1989. 5. It is submitted, that the petitioner was the permanent incumbent of the National Airport Authority for the purpose of claiming arrears on account of pay revision at par with his colleagues, working in N.A. Division, whether on deputation or on direct recruitment, who performed the same duties as that of the petitioner. 6. While working as Draftsman Grade-II (Junior Draftsman), the scale of pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.150-240 with effect from 12.11.1969. The pay of petitioner was revised from 01.01.1973 to Rs.330-560, on the recommendation of the 3rd pay commission. On implementation of 4th pay commission, the pay of petitioner was revised to Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 01.01.1986. 7. It is submitted, that the Government of India had set up a Board of Arbitration, called Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM), which passed an award on 20.06.1980 vide its order C.A.Ref.No.2/1979. On implementation of 4th pay commission, the pay of petitioner was revised to Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 01.01.1986. 7. It is submitted, that the Government of India had set up a Board of Arbitration, called Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM), which passed an award on 20.06.1980 vide its order C.A.Ref.No.2/1979. In the award passed, it was ordered as under: "The three categories of Draftsman namely Grade III, Grade II, Grade I shall be inducted in the pay scale shown hereunder against each of the above said categories namely, Draftsman Grade III - Rs.330-560 Draftsman Grade II - Rs.425-700 & Draftsman Grade I - Rs.550-750 The above mentioned categories of Draftsman shall be fixed notionally in their respective scale of pay as aforesaid from 01.01.1973 in accordance with the recommendations of the III Pay Commission in respect of the weightage of fitman. But for the consultation of arrears the date of reckoning shall be date of recording of disagreement in the departmental council namely 28/29.7.1978. The arrears of pay which shall be worked out in accordance with the above said formula shall be paid to the effect that to the employees within 3 months from the date of receipt of the award by the Ministry of Labour." 8. It is submitted, that the Joint Consultative Machinery fixed the scale of pay of the categories of Grade I, II, III Draftsman in the Central Government Offices as stated above with effect from 01.01.1973 with financial benefits from 29.07.1978. 9. That as on 01.01.1971, the petitioner was holding the post of Draftsman Grade-II (Junior Draftsman) with effect from 12.11.1969, therefore, he was also entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.425-700 for the post of Draftsman Grade-II, which was called as Junior Draftsman. 10. In view of the above award, the Government of India issued an Office Memorandum vide F.5/(59)-E.III/82 dated 13.03.1984, extending the three revised scales of pay to the Draftsman in Offices / Departments of the Government of India other than the Central Public Works Department, in case the qualification for the post was same. 11. According to the Memorandum of the Government of India, the benefit was granted from 13.05.1982 notionally and 01.11.1983 monetarily. 11. According to the Memorandum of the Government of India, the benefit was granted from 13.05.1982 notionally and 01.11.1983 monetarily. Some of the employees filed W.P.No.911 of 1981, which was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and based on the order, Telecommunication Department vide its letter No.10-34/84/CSE-16/19 dated 17.06.1986, allowed the three revised scales of pay to the Draftsmen notionally from 01.01.1973 with actual benefit from 16.11.1978. 12. It is submitted, that the International Airport Authority of India, vide its Circular No.Pers/1006/24/80/1708 dated 12.08.1981 directed the General Manager of the four National Airport Authority of India, i.e. Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras Airports to extend the benefit of Award of Arbitration to the Draftsman, who initially came on deputation to International Authority of India from CPWD and got absorbed in International Airports Authority of India. 13. The revised pay was to be treated as personal to them so long as they continue to hold that particular post, and the benefit was to cease on promotion in IAAI. The actual benefit was directed to be extended with effect from 28.07.1978. 14. It was further directed, that the particulars of persons eligible as per the Award be furnished to the headquarters for information within a month. 15. The submission of petitioner is that while International Airports Authority of India accepted the Arbitration Award and directed fixation of the scale of pay of the Draftsman in Grade-I, II and III, with similar benefits to other similarly placed Draftsman, working in the Civil Aviation Department. 16. The Office Memorandum dated 13.03.1984, was issued to extend the benefit of award to all the Draftsman, working in the Central Government Offices, but inspite of this, benefit of the Award was not extended to the petitioner. 17. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the inaction by respondents in not extending the benefit of revision of pay scale, approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), for refixation of the pay scale of petitioner with effect from 01.01.1973 with actual benefit from 16.11.1978 in the scale of pay of Rs.425-700 vide O.A.No.634 of 1993. 18. 17. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the inaction by respondents in not extending the benefit of revision of pay scale, approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), for refixation of the pay scale of petitioner with effect from 01.01.1973 with actual benefit from 16.11.1978 in the scale of pay of Rs.425-700 vide O.A.No.634 of 1993. 18. The petitioner submits that pending the above Original Application, the Director General of Civil Aviation Department issued a circular vide C-18013/11/89-EW(A) dated 03.08.1994, ordering revision of scale of pay for Junior Draftsman, working in the Aeronautical Communication Organisation in Civil Aviation Department with effect from 13.05.1982 notionally and 01.11.1983 monetarily in the scale of pay of Rs.425 – 700. 19. In view of the above letter, the Hon'ble Tribunal directed the respondents to pass orders in accordance with the above letter within time framed and disposed of the Original Application as infructuous. 20. In pursuance to the circular dated 03.08.1994, the petitioner was granted the scale of pay in the post of Junior Draftsman at Rs.425-700 notionally with effect from 13.05.1982 and actual monetary benefits from 01.11.1983 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, on the belated arrears. 21. It is the submission of the petitioner, that after receiving the above said benefit, the petitioner came to know of the circular, issued by the P&A Department to its Draftsman of various categories, i.e. Grade I, II and III to the effect that Draftsmen working in the Telecommunication Department were given benefit with effect from 22.08.1973 notionally with actual monetary benefits from 16.11.1978, in the scale of pay of Rs.425-700. 22. Based on the above circular, the petitioner represented to the Department for revision of his pay scale with effect from 22.08.1973 with actual benefit from 16.11.1978 in the pay scale of Rs.425-700, as in the case of Telecommunication Department. 23. The claim made by the petitioner was rejected, vide order dated 07.07.1999. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A.No.569 of 2000 and prayed for refixation of scale of pay with effect from 01.01.1973 notionally with actual benefit from 16.11.1978 in the scale of pay of Rs.425-700. 24. Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the application of petitioner, on the ground that the circular of Telecommunication was not applicable to petitioner. The judgment was passed on 15.06.2001. 24. Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the application of petitioner, on the ground that the circular of Telecommunication was not applicable to petitioner. The judgment was passed on 15.06.2001. The petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 25. The case of the petitioner is that, some of the persons approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, by filing C.W.P.No.2168 of 1985, which stood allowed, therefore, based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.08.2002 for grant of similar benefits, but no reply to the said representation was received inspite of reminders by the petitioner. 26. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.No.39736 of 2002 for a direction to decide the representation filed by petitioner in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is not disclosed why the petitioner did not approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal though on earlier occasion, petitioner had filed Original Application in CAT. 27. This Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court within a period of 90 days. It was in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, that the impugned order, rejecting the representation of petitioner was passed. 28. 27. This Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court within a period of 90 days. It was in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, that the impugned order, rejecting the representation of petitioner was passed. 28. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds, (i) that the order passed is highly arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the statutory rules as also to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as the direction of this Court; (ii) that the reasons assigned in rejecting the representation are not sustainable, as the petitioners before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, were also working as Draftsman Grade II, at the time of filing of writ petition and the petitioner was also working as Draftsman Grade-II in the Civil Aviation Department and discharging the same duties with the same qualification, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained; (iii) that there was no dispute with regard to the qualification for discharging of duties, therefore, the ground for rejection is based on totally irrelevant facts, thus, not sustainable in law; (iv) that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has specifically referred to the Award of the Board of Arbitration to grant the relief, therefore, it was not to the respondents to reject the representation, as the petitioner was also entitled to the similar benefit in the Arbitration Award; (v) that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said judgment held, that direct recruits are entitled to the same benefit, which was given to the deputationists, who joined the respondent no.2, therefore, the contention is that, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed to treat all employees similarly for grant of pay scale. 29. It is the submission of petitioner, that the impugned order is not sustainable, as it violates the principle of equal pay for equal work, and that the petitioner cannot be discriminated with regard to pay scale. 30. On the pleadings referred to above, it is prayed, that the impugned order be quashed, and directions be issued to grant petitioner the pay scale of Rs.425-700 with effect from 01.01.1973 notionally with actual monetary benefits from 29.07.1978. 31. The writ petition is opposed by respondents by filing counter. 30. On the pleadings referred to above, it is prayed, that the impugned order be quashed, and directions be issued to grant petitioner the pay scale of Rs.425-700 with effect from 01.01.1973 notionally with actual monetary benefits from 29.07.1978. 31. The writ petition is opposed by respondents by filing counter. The stand in the counter is that, the petitioner was working as Draftsman in the scale of pay of Rs.150-5-175-6-205-EB-7-240 in officiating capacity with effect from 12.11.1969 and in the revised scale of pay of Rs.330-10-380-EB-12-500-EB-15-560 with effect from 01.01.1973. 32. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Draftsman on regular basis with effect from 24.07.1979. The stand, therefore, is that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Draftsman and not Draftsman Grade-II. It is submitted that, on the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission, the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 01.01.1986. In defense the stand of petitioner, that the Board of Arbitration had passed the award, recommending three categories of Draftsman, the stand is that the categories referred to above in the Arbitration Award, exist only in the Central Public Works Department and that there are no such posts in Civil Aviation Department. 33. It is also submitted, that the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is not applicable to the petitioner, as he was not similarly placed, with the petitioners in the said writ petitioner. The Circular dated 12.08.1981, on which reliance has been placed by petitioner, the stand of the respondents is that it was meant for, to the Draftsman, who were absorbed in the International Airports Authority in the year 1971, whereas the petitioner was absorbed only on 02.10.1989, therefore, is not entitled to claim revision of pay scale. 34. It is however not disputed, that the Original Application filed by the petitioner to claim revision of pay scale of Rs.425-700 notionally with effect from 13.05.1982 with monetary benefit from 01.11.1983, was disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. 35. It is submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner was paid arrears. It is also submitted that the petitioner agitated the entire matter before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, therefore, is estopped from agitating the matter again in this Court. 36. It is the positive stand, that the representation filed by petitioner was also rejected on the earlier occasion on 19.02.2003. It is also submitted that the petitioner agitated the entire matter before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, therefore, is estopped from agitating the matter again in this Court. 36. It is the positive stand, that the representation filed by petitioner was also rejected on the earlier occasion on 19.02.2003. 37. In view of stand in the counter, it is prayed, that the writ petition be dismissed. 38. On consideration, I find that the writ petition, as framed is not competent. It is pleaded case of petitioner, that after passing of the Arbitration Award and issuance of the Circular No.Pers/1006/24/80/1708 dated 12.08.1981, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal for refixation of pay scale of petitioner with effect from 01.01.1973 notionally with actual benefit from 16.11.1978 in the pay scale of Rs.425-700 vide O.A.No.634 of 1993. 39. The petitioner, instead of pressing for the relief claimed in application, was satisfied with the Circular C-18013/11/89-EW(A) dated 03.08.1994, vide which the pay scale of Rs.425-700 was granted to petitioner with effect from 13.05.1982 notionally and 01.11.1983 monetarily. 40. In view of disposal of the Original Application, the petitioner did not have any locus standi to re-agitate the matter, because of the bar of res judicata. 41. Interestingly, though the second Application was not competent, the petitioner filed second O.A.No.569 of 2000, for refixation of scale of pay with effect from 01.01.1973 notionally with actual benefit from 16.11.1978 in the scale of pay of Rs.425-700. 42. It is the admitted case of petitioner, that the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, rejected the claim of petitioner, on the ground that the Circular of Telecommunication was not applicable to the petitioner. This judgment was passed on 15.06.2001. 43. The petitioner did not agitate the matter further and allowed this judgment to attain finality. After the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, on a petitioner filed by the Directly recruited Draftsman, Grade-II, the petition approached this Court, by filing W.P.No.39736 of 2002 to disposed of his representation. 44. It may be mentioned here, that the writ petition prima facie was not competent, as it was not open to the petitioner to reopen the closed matter, in view of a judgment passed by the Court, as it is well settled law, that the change of law by subsequent judgment does not give right to a party to reopen the closed matter. 45. 45. In this case, it was not one, but in two Original Applications filed claiming the relief, were rejected, which attained finality. This Court, in previous writ, did not consider the plea of petitioner on merit, but simply directed the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by petitioner in accordance with law, though it was mentioned that the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, be taken into consideration. 46. The impugned order has been passed, rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner, in view of the direction by this Court. 47. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the stand in the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, but there is no need to consider this case on merit, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.569 of 2002, decided on 15.06.2001, in rejecting the claim of petitioner, which had attained finality. 48. The petitioner has no legal right to get the matter reopened on account of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The writ is against the settled law, that change of law does not give right to a party to reopen the finally settled matter. The order rejecting the relief claimed in this writ, attained finality in the year 2001 itself. 49. Consequently, this writ petition, being without any merit, is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.