M.M. Kumar; C.J.— 1. The Union of India and its officer are in appeal against the order dated 05.01.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity the Tribunal) holding that the original applicant is entitled to P.G allowance for possessing Postgraduate Degree in M.D. (Community Medicine) from Madras University. It has remained undisputed that the aforesaid Degree was not initially recognized. The Medical Council of India recognized the Degree only with effect from 01.04.1990. In that regard the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in the impugned order which is also evident from the perusal of letter dated 15.06.2007 sent by the Government of India, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare), stating that the effective date of recognition of P.G qualification of M.D. Social & Preventive Medicine/Community Medicine is 01.04.1990 as per the communication received from MCI 258 (22)/96-Med/2365 dated 02.01.1991. Moreover, one Dr. Gautam Roy has qualified from the same University in March, 1988 has been granted P.G allowance. It is of no consequence that degree has been awarded in 1992 after it was recognized. It has remained undisputed that both the original applicant as well as Dr. Gautam Roy had acquired postgraduate qualification in Community Medicine as in service candidates. The Tribunal has, however, allowed the original application with retrospective effect as per the prayer made by him, i.e. with effect from April, 1987. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that once it is accepted that the postgraduate degree held by the original applicant has been recognized with effect from 01.04.1990 then the P.G allowance can be granted from the date of recognition of the Degree i.e. 01.04.1990. To grant the P.G. allowance from a date anterior to the date of recognition would amount to recognizing the degree from an earlier date which would not be warranted. Such an approach would not be sustainable in law. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, deserves to be upheld to the extent it grants postgraduate allowance to the original applicant and the same would be admissible with effect from 01.04.1990. The interest @ 6% from the date it was payable till the date of payment is also upheld. Accordingly the impugned order of the Tribunal deserves modification and we ordered likewise. 3. The interest @ 6% from the date it was payable till the date of payment is also upheld. Accordingly the impugned order of the Tribunal deserves modification and we ordered likewise. 3. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.