JUDGMENT : Ravikumar, J. The captioned original petitions arise from the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 5.7.2016 in O.A.Nos.928, 938, 939 of 2014 and 436 of 2015 respectively. The applicants/the respondents herein are retirees from the service of Central Passport Organization. They retired either as Assistant Passport Officer or Superintendent of Passport Office or Passport Granting Officer. They approached the Tribunal by filing the above mentioned Original Applications for redressal of a common grievance. The grievance was that while they were working in the post of `Superintendent of Passport Office' in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500-9,000/-, the Vth Central Pay Commission recommended to upgrade 50 posts of Superintendent of Passport Office from the pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- to Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. The said recommendation was not virtually implemented by the Central Government and at the same time, it was also not rejected. While so, the VIth Central Pay Commission upgraded the pay scale of the entire cadre of Superintendents to a higher grade of Rs. 7,450-11,500/- (corresponding pay band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-). The cause for the grievance of the applicants/the respondents herein occurred when the VIth Pay Commission Report was accepted by the Central Government and revised their pay scale to Rs. 7,450-11,500/- (corresponding pay band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-), but without initially fixing their pay in the scale of pay of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. In similar circumstances, a similarly situated employee of the Central Passport Organization by name Sri. Mathew approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.149 of 2010 evidently, aggrieved by the non-fixation of his pay in the upgraded scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- in the post of Superintendent of Passport Office and for granting the benefit of incremental weightage in the revised pay structure. The Tribunal upon considering the rival contentions allowed the said original application as per order dated 12.12.2011 viz., Annexure-A1 in Ext.P1. The Tribunal made observations regarding the manner in which his pay has to be re-fixed taking into account the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission. The Tribunal, as per Annexure-A1 (in Ext.P1), held that the upgradation of the scale of pay of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- to the scale of pay of Rs. 7,450-11,500/- would imply, in the facts and circumstances of the case, prior upgradation of the scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- to the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. The Tribunal, as per Annexure-A1 (in Ext.P1), held that the upgradation of the scale of pay of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- to the scale of pay of Rs. 7,450-11,500/- would imply, in the facts and circumstances of the case, prior upgradation of the scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- to the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation filed by the said Mathew afresh in the light of those observations. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 12.12.2011 in O.A.No.149 of 2010 Union of India and other official respondents took up the matter before this Court by filing O.P.(CAT)No.2635 of 2013. As is obvious from Annexure-A6, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against Annexure-A2 (in Ext.P1) judgment of this Court in O.P.(CAT)No.2635 of 2013 dismissing the Original Petition filed against Annexure-A1 order of the Tribunal. 2. After the judgment of this Court in O.P.(CAT)No. 2635 of 2013, the respondents in the captioned original petitions/the applicants before the Tribunal, approached the petitioners seeking extension of the same benefits, as has been ordered to be granted to the said Mathew, to them. Aggrieved by the delay in the matter of consideration of such representations they filed O.A.No.309 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal as per Annexure-A4 in Ext.P1. As per Annexure-A4, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein/the respondents therein, to take a decision on such representations preferred by the applicants in accordance with law, within the period stipulated therein. A perusal of Annexure-A4 would reveal that while disposing the said original application the Tribunal virtually took note of certain aspects. The Tribunal found that in similar circumstances, Sri. P.V. Mathew approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal as per order in O.A.No.149 of 2010 directed for fixation of his pay in the scale of pay of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- from the date of his promotion as Superintendent with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that as against the said order the petitioners herein/respondents therein approached this Court by filing O.P.(CAT)No.2635 of 2013. However, the said original petition was dismissed by this court. Taking into account all such aspects the Tribunal issued a direction to the respondents therein/the petitioners herein, to consider the representations preferred by the applicants/the respondents herein. However, the said original petition was dismissed by this court. Taking into account all such aspects the Tribunal issued a direction to the respondents therein/the petitioners herein, to consider the representations preferred by the applicants/the respondents herein. In purported compliance with the directions in Annexure-A4 the second petitioner passed Annexure-A5 order dated 12.09.2014. Evidently, as per the same, the representation filed by the first applicant in O.A.No.928 of 2014/the first respondent in O.P.(CAT) No.202 of 2016 was rejected. In fact, similar orders of rejection were passed in the case of all the other applicants. It is in the said circumstances that they preferred the above mentioned original applications which culminated in Ext.P3 common order dated 5.7.2016 of the Tribunal. As per Ext.P3 common order, the Tribunal allowed the original applications and quashed all the orders impugned therein, with a further consequential direction to consider the claim of the respondents in terms of Annexure-A3 order, referred as such in O.A.No.928 of 2014. Annexure-A3 is the consequential order passed in the case of Sri. P.V. Mathew in terms of Annexure-A1 viz., the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.149 of 2010 which was confirmed in Annexure-A2. It is also to be noted that while allowing the original applications as per Ext.P3 common order, taking note of the nature of the order passed by the then Joint Secretary (PSP) & CPO Sri. Muktesh Pardeshi, the Tribunal ordered to send notice to him. The said person was directed to be present in person before the Tribunal on his own expense on 19.9.2016 to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of the Tribunal under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is in the said circumstances that the above mentioned original petitions are filed against the said common order. 3. We have heard Sri. N. Nagaresh, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the petitioners and Smt. Preethi Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. After hearing the learned Assistant Solicitor General and also perusing the materials on record we are of the considered view that there is absolutely no scope for interference with Ext.P3 common order passed by the Tribunal. N. Nagaresh, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the petitioners and Smt. Preethi Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. After hearing the learned Assistant Solicitor General and also perusing the materials on record we are of the considered view that there is absolutely no scope for interference with Ext.P3 common order passed by the Tribunal. As noticed hereinbefore, in Annexure-A4, taking note of the fact that under similar circumstances, a similarly situated employee under the same Organization approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.149 of 2010 and the said original application was allowed in Annexure-A1 and the same got confirmance by Annexure-A2 order of this Court, the Tribunal directed for consideration of the representations filed by the respondents herein, on similar lines. A perusal of Annexure-A5 order passed allegedly, in compliance with the directions would reveal that the fact that the issue involved in these cases were squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.149 of 2010 and that order by the Tribunal in that application was confirmed by this Court, were duly taken into consideration while passing the same. Even after taking note of those crucial aspects the second petitioner rejected the claim of the respondents. The Tribunal took note of the fact that despite taking due notice of the fact that this Court confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal in Annexure-A1 the second petitioner observed in Annexure-A5 thus:- "In the case of Sh. P.V. Mathew, the stand taken by Hon'ble CAT, Ernakulam Bench was not in order as per the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008." It is to be noted that the description of the order passed by the Tribunal which was confirmed by this Court as per Annexure-A2 judgment as `the stand taken by the Tribunal' is certainly a matter to be deprecated. The Tribunal is clothed with the power to decide service matters in accordance with the Administrative Tribunal's Act. Certainly, matters falling under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 is also a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. When the Tribunal passed an order, the authority cannot treat it as `the stand taken by the Tribunal' and it is to be honoured and implemented unless it is modified or reversed by the High Courts. Certainly, matters falling under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 is also a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. When the Tribunal passed an order, the authority cannot treat it as `the stand taken by the Tribunal' and it is to be honoured and implemented unless it is modified or reversed by the High Courts. The tenor of Annexure-A5 order would reveal that the petitioners who are fully aware of the fact that by the time Annexure-A5 order was passed Annexure-A1 order got confirmance as per Annexure-A2 judgment of this Court and the Special Leave Petition filed against Annexure-A2 was dismissed as per Annexure-A6 order, by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, it can be seen that it was an order passed by the Tribunal in Annexure-A1 which got confirmed with the pronouncement of Annexure-A2 judgment and became final with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition as per Annexure-A6 order, that was described only as `the stand taken by the Tribunal', by the second petitioner. Reverting to the merits of this case, a careful scanning of the pleadings of the petitioners before this Court as also before the Tribunal would reveal that there is absolutely no case for them that Sri. P.V. Mathew is not similarly situated to the respondents herein/applicants. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the respondents herein sought not for extension of the same benefits which were granted to Sri. P.V. Mathew under Annexure-A3, in compliance with Annexure-A1 order. As noticed hereinbefore, the grievance of the said Sri. P.V. Mathew was that though 50 posts of Superintendent of Passport Organisation carrying scale of pay of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- were upgraded to the scale of pay of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- the petitioners did not implement the same treating it only as recommendation but, at the same time, did not reject it. Subsequently, the VIth Central Pay Commission upgraded all the posts to the scale of pay of Rs. 7,450-11,500/-. As noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal as per Annexure-A1 order found that the VIth CPC had upgraded the pay scale of the Superintendents of Passport Organization from Rs. 6,500-10,500/- to Rs. 7,450-11,500/- and therefore, the upgradation of the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- to the scale of Rs. 7,450-11,500/- would imply, in the facts and circumstances of that case, prior upgradation of the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- to the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. 6,500-10,500/- to Rs. 7,450-11,500/- and therefore, the upgradation of the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- to the scale of Rs. 7,450-11,500/- would imply, in the facts and circumstances of that case, prior upgradation of the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- to the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. After the judgment of this Court confirming Annexure-A1 order and after unsuccessful attempt to get the said orders reversed by filing a Special Leave Petition the petitioners herein passed Annexure-A3 order in the case of Sri. P.V. Mathew. A perusal of Annexure-A3 order would reveal that in compliance with the directions in Annexures-A1 and A2 the petitioners had re-fixed the scale of pay of Sri. P.V. Mathew. Annexure-A3 would reveal that in his case, his pay scale was upgraded in the pre-revised scale from Rs. 5,500-9,000/- to Rs. 6,500-10,500/- from 1.11.1999, the date on which he was promoted as Superintendent. Taking note of the fact that the respondents are similarly situated and they are also entitled to the same benefit flowing from Annexure-A1 order which was confirmed by this Court in Annexure-A2 order the Tribunal as per the common impugned order directed the petitioners herein to grant the benefits to the respondents strictly in terms of Annexure-A3 order. The contentions raised by the petitioners by filing reply affidavit before the Tribunal would reveal that they had actually attempted to resist the claims and contentions of the respondents by raising contentions which were unsuccessfully raised before the Tribunal in O.A.No.149 of 2010 and again before this Court in O.P.(CAT)No.2635 of 2013. The factual narration as stated above would undoubtedly reveal that the respondents herein were having the same grievance as that of Sri. P.V. Mathew in whose case the Tribunal passed Annexure-A1 order which was confirmed by this Court under Annexure-A2 order. There is no contra contention for the petitioners in that regard. It is realising the fact that the respondents herein got a common grievance akin to the one which was redressed as per Annexure-A1 order and therefore, they are entitled to get similar treatment as has been extended to Sri. P.V. Mathew under Annexure-A1 that the Tribunal issued directions under Ext.P3, especially, taking note of the fact that the directions in Annexure-A1 were virtually implemented vide Annexure-A3. When the finding of the Tribunal that the VIth CPC had upgraded the pay scale of Superintendents of Passport Organisation from Rs. 6,500-10,500/- to Rs. P.V. Mathew under Annexure-A1 that the Tribunal issued directions under Ext.P3, especially, taking note of the fact that the directions in Annexure-A1 were virtually implemented vide Annexure-A3. When the finding of the Tribunal that the VIth CPC had upgraded the pay scale of Superintendents of Passport Organisation from Rs. 6,500-10,500/- to Rs. 7,450-11,500/- and therefore, the upgradation of the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- to the scale of pay of Rs. 7,450-11,500/- would imply prior upgradation of the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- to the scale of pay of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- had become final and formed the basis for Annexure-A1 order which was confirmed by this Court and became final with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition against Annexure-A2 judgment we do not find any reason to hold that the common order passed by the Tribunal is infected with any illegality warranting an interference by us in exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified and correct in holding that the respondents herein are entitled to get the similar direction as in the case of aforesaid Sri. P.V. Mathew and it is the said realisation that culminated in the direction in Ext.P3 common order whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioners to grant the same relief as has been granted to Sri. P.V. Mathew under Annexure-A3. In such circumstances, these original petitions must fail. 5. At this stage, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that the officer who passed Annexure-A3 order viz., Sri. Muktesh Pardeshi, the then Joint Secretary (PSP) & CPO was directed to be present in person, at his own expense, before the Tribunal and he was also directed to show cause why he should not be proceeded against, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Assistant Solicitor General further submitted that the said officer is presently working as Indian Ambassador in Mexico and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent directing him to be present in person at his own expense before the Tribunal may be interfered with and he may be permitted to appear through counsel. On a careful consideration of Ext.P3 order and also the tenor of Annexure-A3 order we are of the view that we will not be justified in entertaining the said submissions. On a careful consideration of Ext.P3 order and also the tenor of Annexure-A3 order we are of the view that we will not be justified in entertaining the said submissions. But, at the same time, we will be justified in granting permission to the petitioners to move the Tribunal seeking dispensation of his personal appearance. In case the petitioners are desirous to move such a petition they may do so within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to the direction for the personal appearance of Shri.Muktesh K. Pardeshi, before the Tribunal pursuant to Ext.P3 common order. Subject to the above, these original petitions are dismissed.