ORDER : 1. The Union of India, including the Director (Languages), Department of Higher Education and the Director of Central Institute of Indian Languages, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Mysuru, have filed this writ petition impugning the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 348 of 2009. The learned Tribunal by its order dated 21.03.2014 has allowed the application filed by the respondent and has directed the petitioners to date back the respondent’s promotion with effect from 27.07.1998. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “After careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the applicant is entitled to the placement in the scale of Professor-Cum-Deputy Director under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme from the date of introduction of the Scheme i.e. 27.07.1998 instead of 26.11.2002, the date of selection committee meeting. The OA is accordingly allowed in terms of the above observations. The respondents are directed to issue necessary revised order granting the applicant the scale from 27.07.1998 and also grant him all the consequential benefits within period of two months from the date of a copy of this order.” 2. The respondent was working as Reader-cum- Research Officer in Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysuru (for short ‘CIIL’), admittedly a subordinate office of the Department of Higher Education under the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi. The petitioners placed five Reader-cum-Research Officers, including respondent, as Professor-cum-Deputy Director with the CIIL vide order dated 27.12.2002 extending the University Grant Commission’s Career Advancement Scheme (for short ‘CAS’) subject to certain conditions inter-alia that such placement shall be with effect from 26.11.2002. The relevant part of this order dated 27.12.2002 reads as follows: “The competent authority is pleased to place the following Reader-cum-Research Officers of the Central Institute Languages, Mysore as Professor-cum-Deputy Director in the same Institute in the scale of pay Rs. 16,400-450- 20,900-500-22,400 under the University Grant Commission’s Career Advancement Scheme for University teachers as extended to the Reader-cum-Research Officers, of CIIL, Mysore, w.e.f. 26.11.2002 (date of meeting of selection committee) 1. Dr. P.N. Dutta Baruah 2. Dr. P. Subbiah 3. Dr. A.K. Basu 4. Dr. K. Vishwanatham 5. Dr. K.P. Acharya Fixation of pay, inter se seniority etc. 16,400-450- 20,900-500-22,400 under the University Grant Commission’s Career Advancement Scheme for University teachers as extended to the Reader-cum-Research Officers, of CIIL, Mysore, w.e.f. 26.11.2002 (date of meeting of selection committee) 1. Dr. P.N. Dutta Baruah 2. Dr. P. Subbiah 3. Dr. A.K. Basu 4. Dr. K. Vishwanatham 5. Dr. K.P. Acharya Fixation of pay, inter se seniority etc. of the above officers will be governed by the provisions in the Career Advancement Scheme of the UGC subject to the limitations, if any, contained in the rules governing services conditions of the Central Government employees. Further there will be no corresponding financial up gradation for the seniors of the officers promoted above on the ground that the junior officers in the same grade have higher pay scales under the Career Advancement Scheme. The benefits of promotion to the officer concerned is only on personal basis and shall not involve creation of new posts for the purposes. These posts when vacated, shall be filled at its original level only by the new incumbent.” 3. The respondent approached the learned Tribunal with Original Application No. 348 of 2009 impugning the order dated 27.12.2002 insofar as the stipulation that the grant of CAS shall be with effect from 26.11.2002, and for a direction to the Petitioner No. 2 (Director (Languages), Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development) to grant the benefit of the CAS and consequential promotion with effect from 27.07.1998 in modification of the impugned order dated 27.12.2002. The respondent contended that the benefit of CAS was granted to the teachers of all the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder, and the Deemed to be Universities with effect from 27.07.1998. However, the grant of CAS was deferred only in the case of the respondent and three others (working with CIIL) with effect from 27.12.2002 on the sole ground that the meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 26.11.2002, and therefore, the deferred grant of CAS to the respondent was discriminatory and arbitrary. 4. The petitioners resisted the application, but admitted that the academic staffs of CIIL, Mysuru are being paid UGC scale of pay from 1978 with benefits of all subsequent pay commissions. Further, the petitioners admitted that the applicant had joined the CIIL as Lecturer in the Southern Regional Language Centre, and later CIIL as Reader-cum- Research Officer. 4. The petitioners resisted the application, but admitted that the academic staffs of CIIL, Mysuru are being paid UGC scale of pay from 1978 with benefits of all subsequent pay commissions. Further, the petitioners admitted that the applicant had joined the CIIL as Lecturer in the Southern Regional Language Centre, and later CIIL as Reader-cum- Research Officer. They contended that the competent authority had approved the grant of the benefit of CAS to the academic staff of CIIL with effect from 26.11.2002 and such benefit could be made applicable only from that date and it cannot be made applicable from any earlier date. The competent authority to consider the grant of CAS is the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi and the meeting of this competent authority was convened on 26.11.2002. It is in such meeting on 26.11.2002, it was decided to grant the benefit of the CAS to the academic staff CIIL (including the petitioner) with effect from 27.07.1998. Therefore, the grant of CAS to the respondent with effect from 26.11.2002 is justified and there is no reason for predating such entitlement. 5. The respondent’s application in O.A. No. 348 of 2009 was allowed by the learned Tribunal dated 27.01.2012. The learned Tribunal allowed the application in O.A. No. 348 of 2009 on the premise that similarly situated persons were granted such benefits, i.e., the benefit of CAS with effect from 27.07.1998. But, this Court in Writ Petition No. 24518 of 2012 set aside such order dated 27.01.2012 and remanded the application for reconsideration by the learned Tribunal. This Court held that though the application was allowed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the respondent was similarly placed, the learned Tribunal had not reasoned how the applicant was similarly placed as others who were granted CAS with effect from 27.07.1998. 6. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 21.03.2014 has allowed the application on three grounds. In terms of the CAS, an employee would be entitled for the benefits thereunder after completion of 8 years in service, and the applicant completed 8 years of service even as of the year 1992. However, the Scheme was made applicable to the academic staff members in Central Universities and certain Deemed to be Universities in the year 1998. In terms of the CAS, an employee would be entitled for the benefits thereunder after completion of 8 years in service, and the applicant completed 8 years of service even as of the year 1992. However, the Scheme was made applicable to the academic staff members in Central Universities and certain Deemed to be Universities in the year 1998. As such, in terms of CAS, the respondent, an academic staff with CIIL, would be entitled for the benefit of CAS as of the date the benefit of CAS was made applicable to Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and the Deemed to be Universities. The CAS has been implemented with effect from 27.07.1998 in all the Centers and Universities including the Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra. The benefit of CAS is granted to the Respondent with effect from 26.11.2002 only because the selection committee could meet on 26.11.2002 and take a decision in that regard. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.01.2012 is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the objection statement as regards the Department of Higher Education, New Delhi under the aegis of the Ministry of Human Resources Development being the competent authority to decide on extending the benefits of CAS, contended that the respondent is claiming parity with employees of autonomous bodies and institutions like Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Central Hindi Institute and Central Institute of India Languages. However, there cannot be parity between the respondent and the employees of such Institutions. Therefore, learned Tribunal’s impugned order is wholly erroneous. 8. This Court repeatedly queried the learned counsel for the petitioners to explain the significance of and the reasons for extending the benefit of CAS to the respondent with effect from 26.11.2002 vide the impugned order dated 27.12.2002 when admittedly the CAS was made applicable to the academic staff of certain Institutions with effect from 27.07.1998. The learned counsel could only state that because the appropriate selection committee under the aegis of the Ministry of Human Resource Development in its meeting on 26.11.2002, decided to extend the benefit of CAS to the respondent and other academic staff of Central Institute of India Languages, Mysuru, the impugned order is issued on 27.12.2002 specifying that the benefit will be applicable with effect from 26.11.2002. But, there is no separate order dated 26.11.2002. But, there is no separate order dated 26.11.2002. As such, the reasons for the decision to grant the benefit of CAS to the academic staff of CIIL (including the respondent) will have to be discerned from the order dated 27.12.2002. The reasonableness of the decision to defer the grant of the benefit of CAS to the respondent (and the other academic staff of CIIL) with effect from 26.11.2002, will have to be adjudicated from the available attendant circumstances. 9. There is no dispute that the CAS in terms of the recommendation by the UGC, is made applicable to the academic staff of all the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder, and Deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by UGC vide the order dated 27.11.1998 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Further, because of this decision by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, the academic staff of the Central Universities and the Colleges thereunder and the specified Deemed Universities, as well as the academic staff of Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra, are granted the benefit of CAS with effect from 27.07.1998. Admittedly, CIIL is also a subordinate office of the Department of Higher Education under the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi. But, the appropriate Selection Committee under the aegis of Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi, by the impugned order dated 27.12.2002, has extended the benefit of CAS to the academic staff of CIIL (including the respondent) with effect from 26.11.2002 i.e., after a lapse of over four years. As is obvious from the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the pleadings, the benefit of grant of CAS is deferred, or in other words, denied to the respondent only because the concerned selection committee decided to extend the CAS to the academic staff of CIIL in its meeting held on 26.11.2002. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to explain the reason for deferring to grant the benefit of CAS to the respondent and other academic staff of CIIL until 26.11.2002. The respondent’s cause as against grant of CAS scheme with effect from 26.11.2002 is essential on the ground that the benefit of CAS is deferred merely because the Selection Committee meet on a particular date and decided to extend the benefit of the CAS. The respondent’s cause as against grant of CAS scheme with effect from 26.11.2002 is essential on the ground that the benefit of CAS is deferred merely because the Selection Committee meet on a particular date and decided to extend the benefit of the CAS. Further, in the absence of reasons to differentiate between the respondent and similarly placed academic staff with other Institutions/Universities referred to above, who have been given the benefit from 27.7.1998, the deferment in the case of the respondent is discriminatory. The petitioners are not able to either plead or indicate intelligible differentia for this difference. Further, there is no dispute that the respondent and his other academic staff with Central Institute of India Languages were qualified for the benefit of the CAS in terms of the first order dated 27.7.1998, which is one of the reasons considered by the learned Tribunal. In the absence of requisite intelligible differentia between the academic staff of CIIL and other institutions which also come under the aegis of the Ministry of Human Resource, Department of Higher Education, the denial of the benefit of CAS to the respondent solely on the ground that the Selection Committee met on a particular day would be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no irregularity in the learned Tribunal directing the petitioners, while allowing the respondent’s application, to date back the respondent’s promotion with certain consequential benefits with effect from 27.7.1998. Therefore, no grounds are made out for interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Rule is discharged and writ petition is dismissed.