JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.09.2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by which the Original Application being OA No. 295/2011 has been allowed granting the relief prayed for in the OA. This writ petition is also directed against the order dated 03.11.2011, passed in the Review Application being RA No. 04/2011, by which the review application filed by the present petitioner assailing the said order dated 09.09.2011, passed in OA No. 295/2010, has been rejected. The matter pertains to parity in pay. The OA was filed by the applicants before the Tribunal, seeking upgradation of pay in reference to the similarly situated Hindi Translator as of the other Central Government Departments under the same Ministry, i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs. When their prayer was rejected by the Department, they filed the OA challenging the said decision and also made the following prayer: "That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the revise scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-, Rs. 65000-10500/- and Rs. 7500-12000/- to the Hindi Translator Grade-II, Hindi Translator Grade-I and Hindi Officer respectively in Assam Rifles w.e.f. 01.01.1986 at least on national basis in terms of Annexure-I and II hereto, and further revised scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/-, Rs. 7450-11,500/- and Rs. 8000-13,500/- respectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of Annexure-III & IV hereto, with all consequential benefit including arrear monetary benefit, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Tribunal on 25.05.2010, in O.A. 331/2009, passed by the Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Shri Shiv Kumar Gaur v. Union of India & Others) as well as in the light of judgment and order dated 08.08.2008 passed by the Learned Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in O.A. 615/2006 (D.K. Rai & Others v. Union of India)" 2. As stated in the OA, the applicants numbering 35, all working as Hindi Translator Grade-II and Grade-I in the Assam Rifle under the administrative control of the Director General, Assam Rifles, Shilong, referring to the Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2008 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, claimed for pay parity at par with the employees of the subordinate offices of the Central Government. For a ready reference the OM dated 24.11.2008 is reproduced below: "F. No. 1/1/2008-IC Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell New Delhi, dated 24th November, 2008. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Revised pay scales for Official Language Posts in various subordinate offices of the Central Government. Consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, this Department has received queries from many Ministries/Departments regarding the revised pay structure applicable in the case of Official Language posts existing in subordinate offices of the Central Government. In this connection, it is clarified that in accordance with the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission as accepted by the Government similarly designated posts existing outside the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) cadre in various subordinate offices of the Central Government have been granted the same pay scales as those granted to CSOLS. The Government has notified the following revised pay structure for the Official language cadre belonging to CSOLS:-- 2. Accordingly, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, all Ministries/Departments etc., are required to grant the revised pay scales approved for various posts in the CSOLS to similarly designated Official Language posts existing in their subordinate offices. Sd/- ALOK SAXENA DIRECTOR (IC)" 3. In the written statement filed by the respondents, who are the petitioners in the instant writ petition, it was contended that the applicants serving in different units/locations of Assam Rifle, had been extended the entitled revised scale of pay as per the recommendation of the 4th, 5th, 6th CPC under existing recruitment rules. It was also contended that the post of Hindi Translator Grade-II, Hindi Translator Grade-I and Hindi Officers are classified under General Central Government Civil Services (GCCS) and comparison of these posts to Junior Translator, Senior Translator and Assistant Director (Official Language) in the central Secretariat Official Language Services (CSOLS) under the Ministry of Home Affairs is not correct. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, the petitioners had contended that recruitment, qualification, nature of duties and responsibilities, avenue of promotion etc. of the applicants, although could be the same, but the pay scales on that counts may not be admissible. However, in paragraphs 13 and 18 of the written statement, the respondents had contended as follows: "13. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, the petitioners had contended that recruitment, qualification, nature of duties and responsibilities, avenue of promotion etc. of the applicants, although could be the same, but the pay scales on that counts may not be admissible. However, in paragraphs 13 and 18 of the written statement, the respondents had contended as follows: "13. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 4.14 & 4.15 of the Original Application, the answering respondent beg to submit that the point regarding equal recruitment qualifications in Assam Rifles and Central Secretariat Official Language Services (CSOLS) is agreed to. Pay and allowances are applicable as per rank structure approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in Assam Rifles hence, point is not agreed to and denied. ******** ******* ******* 18. That with regard to the statement made in Para 5.5 of the Original Application, the answering respondents beg to state that the educational qualifications, nature of duties and responsibilities of the applicants are similar to that their counterparts working in Central Secretariat Official Language Office Service and its subordinate offices is denial of upgraded pay scale to the applicants is discriminatory and opposed to me provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India is agreed in principal but without specific orders of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, accepting the requests of applicants is clear cut violation of law which is unjustified and illegal hence denied." 4. The learned Tribunal, by its impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2011 having allowed the above prayer of the applicants by setting aside the order of rejection of their claim, the petitioner preferred RA No. 04/2011, which was also rejected by order dated 03.11.2011, holding that no apparent error could be pointed out in the judgment. 5. We have heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned CGC representing the Director General of Assam Rifles i.e. the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. U Dutta, learned counsel representing the respondents, who were the applicants before the Tribunal. 6. While Mr. Dutta submits that the Tribunal has proceeded with a wrong motion of the matter in equalizing the services of the applicants with those of the subordinate offices of the Central Civil Services, Ms. We have also heard Ms. U Dutta, learned counsel representing the respondents, who were the applicants before the Tribunal. 6. While Mr. Dutta submits that the Tribunal has proceeded with a wrong motion of the matter in equalizing the services of the applicants with those of the subordinate offices of the Central Civil Services, Ms. U Dutta, learned counsel representing the respondents on the other hand submits that when the facts stave on the face of it requiring grant of same pay scale to the applicants, the Tribunal rightly passed the order and accordingly there is no jurisdictional error in passing the order requiring interference of this Court. 7. Mr. Dutta learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on certain decisions of the Apex Court which are, Union of India & Another v. S.K. Sareen, AIR 1997 SC 3951 ); Union of India & Others v. Hiranmoy Sen & Others, (2008) 1 SCC 630 ; Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) & Others v. Union of India & Others, (1988) 3 SCC 91 . He has also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi dated 20.02.2008 (PD Sharma v. Union of India) (unreported). 8. Ms. U Dutta, learned counsel representing the respondents has also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Krishna Bhatta v. State of Tripura & Others, (2011) 4 GLR 371; Chingsubam Ningol v. State of Manipur & Others, (2011) 4 GLR 611; Jaipal & Others v. State of Haryana & Others, (1988) 3 SCC 354 and the case of Union of India & Others v. Rajesh Kumar Gond, 2013 (6) SLR 754 (SC). She has also drawn our attention to the letter dated 02.05.2013, addressed to all Ministries/Departments Government of India in the Department of Official Language Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. For a ready reference, the letter is quoted below: Dear Secretary, 1. You may be aware that Expenditure Dept, Ministry of Finance had ordered vide their OM No. 1/1/208-IC dated 24 Feb 2008 (Copy end) that the designations and Pay Scale of Official Language posts in subordinate offices of Govt. of India will be similar to that of Central Secretariat Official Language Services. You may be aware that Expenditure Dept, Ministry of Finance had ordered vide their OM No. 1/1/208-IC dated 24 Feb 2008 (Copy end) that the designations and Pay Scale of Official Language posts in subordinate offices of Govt. of India will be similar to that of Central Secretariat Official Language Services. It has been brought to the notice of Official Language Dept that the order of Expenditure Department has not yet been implemented in all subordinate offices, which causes discontentment in the Official Language officers employed there. 2. I shall be grateful if you ensure compliance in the subordinate offices of your Ministry/Dept about the implementation of similar designations and pay scales at par with Central Secretariat Official Language Service and Official Language Dept may be intimated about the action taken in this regard. With regards. Yours Sd/- (A.K. Jain)" 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also considered the entire materials on record. 10. As to what is the basis of the impugned judgment dated 09.09.2011 has been noticed above. The judgment is primarily on the basis of the above quoted OM dated 24.11.2008. As per the said OM, all Ministries/Departments etc. are required to grant the revised pay structure as indicated therein. It has been approved for various posts in the CSOLS (Central Secretariat Official Language Services), with the specification that the designated posts existing in the subordinate offices would also stand covered. 11. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the recruitment rules pertaining to the Assam Rifles is the Assam Rifles Senior Hindi Official (Group-A) Recruitment Rules 2001. He has also referred to the pari materia Rules pertaining to Group-B and Group-C Hindi Officials. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008, shall apply to persons appointed to Civil Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Unions, whose pay is debitable to the Civil estimates, as also to personals, serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. The first schedule to the aforesaid rules lays down the revised Pay Bands and grade Pays for posts carrying present scale in Group A, B, C and D except posts for which different revised scales are notified separately. The first schedule to the aforesaid rules lays down the revised Pay Bands and grade Pays for posts carrying present scale in Group A, B, C and D except posts for which different revised scales are notified separately. In the list of address of Departments/attached/subordinate offices of the Ministry of Home Affairs the Department of Official language, there is Central Hindi Training Institute, Central Translation Bureau, Regional Implementation Offices, Committee on Official Language Secretariat etc. 12. Referring to the aforesaid provisions of the rules and lists of Ministries/Departments, Mr. Dutta learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the OM on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed is not referable to the applicants working in the Assam Rifles. He submits that in any case, the Tribunal could not have issued the direction for providing the particular pay scales to the applicants only in reference to the said OM without examining the other principles for grant of pay parity in reference to their counter parts working in the other department/departments of the Central Civil Services. 13. Ms. U Dutta, learned counsel representing the applicants, while referring to the aforesaid OM dated 24.11.2008, has drawn our attention to the reference made in the said OM about the acceptance of the recommendations of the 6th CPC by the Government in respect of similarly designated posts existing outside the Central Secretariat Official Language Services (CSOLS) cadre in various subordinate offices of the Central Government. It is also her submission, in reference to the above quoted letter dated 02.05.2013, that when the pay parity has been extended by the Ministry of Home Affairs in reference to OM dated 24.11.2008, even to the incumbents of the subordinate offices like that of the Central Secretariat Official Language Services, there cannot be any deviation from the said position so as to deny the pay parity to the applicants. Referring to the above quoted stand of the respondents i.e. the present petitioner in their written statement, she also submits that in view of the above stand of the petitioner there can be only one conclusion which is that the applicants have been denied the benefit of pay parity irrationally and arbitrarily. 14. The decisions on which Ms. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance are on the principle of equal pay for equal work'. 14. The decisions on which Ms. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance are on the principle of equal pay for equal work'. In Krishna Bhatta (supra) this Court issued direction for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner at par with the Law Clark working in Health and Family Welfare Department. In that case the petitioner was working in the Law Department under, the same Government i.e. the Government of Tripura and it was, in such circumstances, the direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner. In Chingsubam Ningol (supra) also this Court directed for granting of same pay scale to the petitioner in reference to ROP Rules of 1999, when it was found that the petitioner was shouldering the same responsibility and doing the same work under the same Government. In S.K. Sareen (supra) the Apex Court dealing with the principle of equal pay for equal work' in reference to secretaries to Vice Chairman and Chairman of Administrative Tribunal vis-à-vis Private Secretaries attached to the Ministers and Judges of High Court held that Tribunal was not justified in granting relief to the respondents. The Tribunal having not notified the materials related to mode of recruitment, qualifications, responsibilities attached to office, promotional opportunities and like of that, remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the same. 15. In Hiranmoy Sen (supra) the Apex Court dealing with the question of parity in employment and 'equal pay for equal work', made the following observations: "This Court in S.G. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 , has held that the Court cannot fix pay scales as that is the purely executive function, in the aforesaid decision one of us (Markandey Katju, J.) has discussed in detail the principle of equal pay for equal work and has observed that the said principle has been considerably watered down in recent decisions of this Court, and it is not applied unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups, and even there the matter should be sent for examination by an expert committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting the higher pay scale. The entire case law on the subject has been discussed in the said decision. Following the aforesaid decision in S.C. Chandra case this appeal has to be allowed. The entire case law on the subject has been discussed in the said decision. Following the aforesaid decision in S.C. Chandra case this appeal has to be allowed. It cannot be said that there is a complete and wholesale identity between the Senior Auditors in me Office of Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya and Assistants in the Central Secretariat." 16. In Jaipal and Others (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the applicability of the doctrine "equal pay for equal work" held that equal work means similar and not exactly the same work. It was held that if two categories of employees perform similar nature of work, the fact that employees of one cadre were appointed temporarily, but the other appointed regularly, would not be material for applicability of the doctrine. In Rajesh Kumar Gone (supra) dealing with the concept of pay parity, the Apex Court when found that the respondent working as a Junior Hindi Translator in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise was doing the same nature of job and that there was no functional distinction as far as the work of the Translators is concerned, affirmed the order of the Tribunal as well as the High Court granting pay parity to the respondents. 17. In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (supra), the Supreme Court made the following observations: "In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done, that is, on intelligible basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less- it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less- it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in fact in the light of the averments made in the facts mentioned before, it is not possible to say that the differentiation is based on no rational nexus with the object sought for to be achieved. In that view of the matter this application must fail and it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs." 18. As has been held in the aforesaid decisions, the problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula If it has a rational nexus with an object sought to be achieved, in the normal circumstances, the matter is required to be laid to the sound discretion of the Authority. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment solely on the basis of the Office Memorandum of the Government, in the Ministry of Finance. 19. Although a thin distinction is sought to be made by the learned counsel for the parties in respect of the expression "subordinate office of the Central Government", but that was valid consideration in the matter of granting the pay parity. The same very expression i.e. "subordinate offices" has been referred to in the above quoted letter dated 02.05.2013. 20. As to what was the plea of the petitioner before the Tribunal, has been noticed above Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that there are some contradictions in the written statement in respect of the pleas taken. 20. As to what was the plea of the petitioner before the Tribunal, has been noticed above Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that there are some contradictions in the written statement in respect of the pleas taken. While in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the written statement the petitioner tried to justify the denial of pay parity to the applicants, but in subsequent paragraphs, more particularly in paragraphs 13 and 18, quoted above, it was specifically admitted that denial of upgraded pay scale to the applicants was discriminatory and abuse of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, with the aforesaid plea, it was also contended that unless there is specific order of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, accepting the claim of the applicants, nothing could be done in the matter. It is in this context Ms. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicants has produced the aforesaid above quoted letter dated 02.05.2013 so as to emphasize that the said letter having been issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, there is no escape from the conclusion that the applicants are entitle to pay parity. 21. The Office Memorandum dated 27.11.2008 is of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance. The above quoted letter dated 02.05.2013 has been issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs in reference to the said office memorandum. As noted above, a thin distinction is sought to be made in reference to the expression "subordinate office". While according to the petitioner, the pay parity is not applicable to the applicants, they being not the incumbents of the subordinate office, it is the case of the applicants that they are fully covered by the said OM, subsequently clarified by the above quoted letter dated 02.05.2013. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of the writ petition directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to take appropriate decision in the matter in consultation with the Government of India in the Finance Department and consistently, with the stand taken before the Tribunal in para 13 and 18 of the WS quoted above and also the observations made above. Let an appropriate decision in the matter be taken by a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. Let an appropriate decision in the matter be taken by a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. The writ petition is answered in the above manner, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.