JUDGMENT Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. When the Miscellaneous Petition came up for consideration today, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main Writ Petition itself was taken up for disposal. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel representing the Southern Railway and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the records. 3. The second respondent / applicant, who was appointed as Casual Labour on 19.02.1980 and subsequently regularised as Lascar / Peon with effect from 01.3.1983, was promoted as Clerk on 18.7.1991 and further promoted as Senior Clerk on 03.02.1990 on adhoc basis and regularised as such with effect from 20.5.1997 in the construction wing. Thereafter, he was repatriated to the Southern Railway. The grievance of the applicant before the Tribunal was that though he was drawing Rs.5375/- in the pay scale of Rs. 4500 - 7000/-at the time of his repatriation to the Southern Railway, after his joining in the parent cadre on 06.12.2000, his pay was reduced to Rs.4875/- vide office order No.Admn.08/2001 dated 08/10.01.2001. The further case of the applicant was that though, after repeated representations, his pay was again fixed at Rs. 5375/- with effect from 01.8.2000 vide order dated 03.4.2002, the same was not given effect to and the same was cancelled vide letter dated 13.01.2003. The subsequent representation dated 30.3.2009 seeking pay protection was rejected by the Chief Personnel officer, Southern Railway, by order dated 22.9.2010, which was impugned before the Tribunal. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials before it, following the decisions relied on by the applicant, found that the applicant is entitled for pay protection and accordingly, allowed the Original Application. The Tribunal placed reliance on the order of this Court passed in the case of G. Palanisamy v. Union of India and others and made the following directions: "Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.9.2010 is quashed and set aside. We direct the respondents to protect the pay of the applicant at Rs.5375/- when he joined parent cadre on 06.12.2000. However, actual pay fixation will take place along with immediate senior." Aggrieved by the same, the Department has preferred the present writ petition. 5. We direct the respondents to protect the pay of the applicant at Rs.5375/- when he joined parent cadre on 06.12.2000. However, actual pay fixation will take place along with immediate senior." Aggrieved by the same, the Department has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Railways submitted that the second respondent, while on deputation to the Construction Organization, was granted ad-hoc promotion as Senior Clerk on 01.7.1995 whereas his immediate senior in his parent cadre, to which he has lien, was promoted as Senior Clerk only on 20.5.1997 and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, after repatriation, the second respondent has to be necessarily placed below his senior in the parent cadre since he cannot be given more pay than his immediate senior as otherwise, the same would lead to unsettling the position of employees senior to him in the parent cadre and would result in an anomaly of seniors deriving less pay than their junior, second respondent. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the pay of the second respondent after repatriation had been rightly fixed in accordance with his position in the parent cadre and the Tribunal, without regard to the seniority in the cadre post, has granted the relief, which is liable to be set aside and sought for interference of this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that though the second respondent was repatriated to the parent cadre, he is entitled for pay fixation at Rs.5375/- with effect from 01.8.2000 in the scale of pay of Rs.4500 – 7000/- as Senior Clerk as he was holding the same post on regular basis in the Construction Organization before his repatriation to Chennai Division on 06.12.2000 in terms of Rule 1313 of IREC Vol. II, with all consequential pay fixations. According to the learned counsel, the authorities have rejected the claim of the second respondent without proper application of Rule 1313 of IREC Vol. II, which is illegal and against law and submitted that the order of the Tribunal requires no interference. 7. It is not disputed that the second respondent, who was initially appointed as Casual Labour and subsequently regularized as Lascar in the year 1983, was sent on deputation to the Construction Organization with his lien in parent cadre Personnel Branch of MAS Division. 7. It is not disputed that the second respondent, who was initially appointed as Casual Labour and subsequently regularized as Lascar in the year 1983, was sent on deputation to the Construction Organization with his lien in parent cadre Personnel Branch of MAS Division. Thereafter, he was promoted as Clerk and further as Senior Clerk on 03.02.1990 on adhoc basis and was also regularized on the same post with effect from 20.5.1997 in the Construction Wing. It is further seen from the materials available on record that the authorities have admitted that the pay of the second respondent was reduced to Rs.4875/- from Rs.5375/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500 – 7000 without any notice, which is nothing but gross violation of principles of natural justice. As rightly held by the Tribunal, when once the second respondent has been granted the pay in the exceeder post, it cannot be reduced without notice to him. 8. Further, the Tribunal also relied on its decision in O.A. No. 452 of 2006 in the case of G. Palanisamy v. Union of India and others wherein the applicant's pay in the post of Clerk was fixed taking into account his earlier services and the appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed by this Court in W.P. No. 3806 of 2008. 9. We have gone through the order of the Division Bench of this Court (wherein both of us are members) dated 30.9.2009 in W.P. No. 3806 of 2008 filed by the Union of India as against the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 452 of 2006, wherein in paragraph 6, it has been held as follows: "As the second respondent was utilized for a long period in the higher post carrying higher responsibilities, benefit of pay protection, age relaxation and counting of his service on the higher post towards requisite minimum prescribed period of service, if any, for promotion to the higher post must be granted to him as his legitimate claim. As found by the Tribunal, the second respondent is neither asking for the pay scale which he was drawing nor regularization in the post held by him before reversion. As found by the Tribunal, the second respondent is neither asking for the pay scale which he was drawing nor regularization in the post held by him before reversion. On the other hand, he only sought for the pay last drawn by him in his earlier services initially as Clerk and then as Depot Storekeeper and the Tribunal has rightly taking into consideration his earlier service while allowing the Application...." 10. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the length of service rendered by the second respondent in the Construction Branch and the fact that he worked in various capacities like Casual Labor, Lascar, Clerk and Senior Clerk and following the decision of this Court, has rightly quashed the impugned order of the Department rejecting pay protection to the second respondent. We find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. In view of the above, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.