JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Peprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Pradeep Modi along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Saraswat, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities of South Eastern Railways. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners 3. It is submitted that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging only a part of the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the CAT) in Case No. O.A/051/00083/2015, whereby the order dated 11/12.03.2015 (Annexure-13) passed by the respondent No.-9 regarding fixation of pay of the petitioners has been upheld. Vide Annexure-13, the representation of the petitioners challenging the letters all dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-9 series) have been rejected. Vide letters dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-9 series), the petitioners were informed that the re-employed pensioners of defence forces are not eligible for protection of pay/pay structure of the post held by them prior to retirement. 4. The petitioners have further challenged the order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure-17) passed by the CAT rejecting the review petition of the petitioners seeking review of aforesaid order dated 29.02.2016. 5. The petitioners are also seeking a direction upon the respondents to restore the pay-scale and salary of the petitioners to which they were getting in the month of August, 2014 and also to pay the difference of pay/salary to the petitioners with effect from September, 2014 till restoration of the pay-scale. 6. The specific case of the petitioners, who are ex-servicemen, is that the action of the respondents in the matter of fixation of pay upon their re-employment in South Eastern Railways is contrary to the circulars of Union of India as well as of Ministry of Railways, Government of India as contained in Annexures-3 to 7 of the present petition. The Annexure-3 is the office memorandum issued by Ministry of Personnel, Government of India, dated 05.04.2010; The Annexure 4 is the letter dated 24.07.2013 issued by the Ministry of Railways stating that the circular issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India is also applicable on the Ministry of Railways; The Annexure-5 is an office order dated 18.06.2014 issued by the Western Railways, issuing certain clarifications with regards to fixation of pay of ex-servicemen. The Annexure-6 and 6/1 are the office orders dated 28.07.2014 and 03.07.2014 issued by the other departments regarding applicability of the aforesaid office memorandum dated 05.04.2010; The Annexure 7 dated 18.11.2014 is issued by the Central Railways also clarifies the applicability of said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 in the matter of fixation of pay. 7. It has been submitted that the learned CAT, while passing the impugned order dated 29.02.2016, has not considered the materials available on record to the extent that the petitioners are governed by paras-4(d)(i) of the aforesaid office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-3) but the learned CAT has held that the fixation of pay of the petitioners is guided by para-4(b)(i) of the office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-3). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that a number of similarly situated persons working in railways as well as different departments of the government are enjoying the benefit claimed by the petitioners in the matter of fixation of pay but the petitioners have been deprived. He submits that such instances have been referred to in the main petition as well as in the supplementary affidavit filed in this case. The petitioners claim parity vis -a-vis others. He submits that the entire matter revolves around interpretation of the office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-3). Arguments on behalf of the respondents. 9. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents have opposed the prayer of the petitioners and have submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned CAT is well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference. He submits that the CAT has given correct interpretation of the provision and has also dealt with the arguments of the petitioners with regards to other persons who might be enjoying such benefit of pay protection. The learned CAT has rightly held that as the matter relates to interpretation of the office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-3), the interpretations given by other authorities are not binding on the CAT. Learned counsels have also opposed the supplementary affidavit by saying that the facts which were not placed before the learned CAT may not be entertained at this stage and they are interested in authoritative pronouncement with regards to the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-3) which are applicable to the petitioners. Findings of this Court 10. Findings of this Court 10. From the arguments of the parties it is apparent that the petitioners are admittedly governed by office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-3) in the matter of fixation of their pay upon their re-employment in South Eastern Railways. 11. Before dealing with the issue involved in the present case, this Court finds it proper to enumerate the undisputed facts of the present case. Undisputed facts 12. All the petitioners are ex-servicemen from defence services and before attaining the age of 55 years, they were released. The petitioners were non-commissioned officer. After superannuation, the petitioners, were appointed on the post of Helper Grade-II/Khalasi under South Eastern Railways vide office order dated 08.07.2011, 14.07.2011, and, 30.06.2011 respectively, all issued by the respondent No. 10. 13. At the time of superannuation, the last pay drawn by the ; petitioner No.-1 was Rs. 10,440/- and grade pay was 4,200/-; petitioner No.-2 was Rs. 10,010/- and grade pay was 4,200/- petitioner No.-3 was Rs. 16,230/- and grade pay was 6,100/-. 14. After appointment of the petitioners in railway services, the respondents fixed the pay of ; petitioner No.-1 at Rs. 5,410/- in grade pay of 18,00/- petitioner No.-2 at Rs. 5,630/- in grade pay of 18,00/- petitioner No.-3 at Rs. 5,410/- in grade pay of 18,00/-. 15. The petitioners filed representation for re-fixation of their pay-scales according to the last pay drawn by them in defence services, and the respondents re-fixed the pay-scales and the pay. 16. In the month of August 2014, the petitioner No.-1 was getting gross salary of Rs. 30,219/-; the petitioner No.-2 was getting gross salary of Rs. 28,939/- the petitioner No.-3 was getting gross salary of Rs. 43,686/-. 17. In the month of September, 2014, the petitioners were served with letter dated 17.09.2014 by which the fixed pay of the petitioners were unilaterally declared to be wrong and accordingly, the pay of the petitioners were reduced to that of newly appointed employee on the date of appointment and direction was given to the petitioners to deposit the differential amount which was paid in excess within one month. 18. With effect from the month of September, 2014, the gross salary was reduced for ; the petitioner No.-1 to Rs. 17,877/; the petitioner No.-2 to Rs. 17.877/-; the petitioner No.-3 to Rs. 18,150/-. 19. 18. With effect from the month of September, 2014, the gross salary was reduced for ; the petitioner No.-1 to Rs. 17,877/; the petitioner No.-2 to Rs. 17.877/-; the petitioner No.-3 to Rs. 18,150/-. 19. In such circumstances, the petitioners challenged the order dated 17.09.2014 before the CAT in O.A. No. 051/00215 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2014 with a direction to the respondent to pass a reasoned and speaking order treating the O.A. as a representation and till then the recovery was stayed. 20. Ultimately the representation of the petitioners was rejected by the respondent No.-9 vide order dated 12.03.2015 by holding that after retirement from defence services, the petitioners have received settlement dues from defence services and are getting pension of that service every month and as such they are coming under para-4(b)(i) of the office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (annexure-3) and accordingly, the pay has been fixed as per structure of the re-employed post as applicable and pay protection of previous service could be extended only when the pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored. As per the said order dated 12.03.2015, the pension and the pensionary benefits of the petitioners were fully ignored, hence no protection of previous service is applicable as per rules. The representation of the petitioners was rejected by citing reasons as under : - “in regard to the fixation of pay of Ex-serviceman, Estt.Srl.No.194/2011 has been issued by CPO/SER/GRC. (Copy enclosed). After retirement from defence service, all of you have received settlement dues from defence service and getting pensions of that service every month as such you are coming under the clarification of Para-4(b)(i) of the above Estt. Serial. Accordingly, your pays have been fixed as per pay structure of the re-employed post as applicable. Only pay protection of previous service extended when the pension and pensioner benefits are not ignored. In your case, all of you have ignored pension and pensioner benefits fully hence no pay protection of previous service is applicable as per rule.” 21. Challenging the said order dated 12.03.2015, the petitioners filed the present O.A. No. 051/00083/2015 before the CAT which was decided vide impugned order dated 29.02.2016 as contained in Annexure-16. In your case, all of you have ignored pension and pensioner benefits fully hence no pay protection of previous service is applicable as per rule.” 21. Challenging the said order dated 12.03.2015, the petitioners filed the present O.A. No. 051/00083/2015 before the CAT which was decided vide impugned order dated 29.02.2016 as contained in Annexure-16. The learned Tribunal was pleased to uphold the pay fixation and the order passed by the respondent by holding that fixation of pay at entry level is in accordance with the rules, but was pleased to set-aside the order of recovery of excess amount already paid to the petitioners. 22. The specific case of the petitioners before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has been recorded in para-4 of the impugned judgment that as per para-4(d) of circular dated 05.04.2010 their entire pension has to be ignored for pay fixation and as per para-4(b)(ii) of the same circular, their pay has to be fixed as the last pay drawn before retirement. The case of the respondents was also recorded in the same paragraph of the impugned judgment that where pension is ignored altogether, the pay fixation has to be governed by para-4(b)(i) of the office memorandum dated 05.04.2010, and not by para-4(b)(ii). Para 4(b)(i) mandates that in such cases, where pension is ignored altogether, the initial pay on re-employment shall be fixed at the minimum of the scale of pay of the re-employed post. Further, according to para-4(a), the re-employed pensioner shall be entitled to draw pay only in the prescribed pay-scales/pay-structure of the posts, in which they are re-employed and no protection of the scales of pay/pay-structure of the posts held by them prior to their retirement shall be given. 23. Before this Court, it is the specific case of the petitioners during the course of argument that the petitioners are governed only by para-4(d)(i) of the office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 and their entire pension has to be ignored for pay fixation. Further in view of para-4(b)(ii), the petitioners would be entitled to fixation of their pay at the last pay drawn before retirement. Further in view of para-4(b)(ii), the petitioners would be entitled to fixation of their pay at the last pay drawn before retirement. On the other hand, the specific case of the respondents before this Court is that the petitioners would be governed by para-4(b)(i) which provides that the initial pay on re-employment shall be fixed at the minimum of the scale of pay of the re-employment and para-4(a) clearly provides that re-employed pensioners shall be allowed to draw pay only in the prescribed pay-scale/pay-structure of post, in which, they are re-employed and no protection of the scales of pay/pay-structure of the post held by them prior to their retirement shall be given. As per para 4(d)(i), the entire pension and pension equivalent of retirement benefits are to be ignored for the petitioners who were non-commissioned officers of the defence. 24. Thus, the relevant paragraph of the said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 for deciding the controversy in the present case are paras-4(a), 4(b) and 4(d) which have been quoted by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in a table as contained in para-9 of the impugned judgment. The quotation has two columns and the specific case of both the parties is that they are governed by the provisions contained in the right-hand column of the said table. The relevant paragraphs of office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-3), as applicable to the petitioners, are quoted as follows: - Para 4(a) Re-employed pensioners shall be allowed to draw pay only in the prescribed pay scale/pay structure of the post in which they are re-employed. No protection of the scales of pay/pay structure of the post held by them prior to retirement shall be given. Note: Under the provisions of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008, revised pay structure comprises the grade pay attached to the post and the applicable pay band. Para 4(b) (i) In all cases where the pension is fully ignored, the initial pay on re-employment shall be fixed as per the entry pay in the revised pay-structure of the re-employed post applicable in the case of direct recruits appointed on or after 01.01.2006 as notified vide Section II, Part A of First Schedule to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. (ii) In cases where the entire pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for pay fixation, the initial basis pay on re-employment shall be fixed at the same stage as the last basic pay drawn before retirement. (ii) In cases where the entire pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for pay fixation, the initial basis pay on re-employment shall be fixed at the same stage as the last basic pay drawn before retirement. However, he shall be granted the grade pay of the re-employed post. The maximum basic pay cannot exceed the grade pay of the re-employed post plus pay in the pay band of Rs. 67,000 i.e. the maximum of the pay band PB-4. In all these cases, the non-ignorable part of the pension shall be reduced from the pay so fixed. Illustration A colonel who retired with basic pay of Rs. 61700 (grade pay Rs. 8700; pay in the pay band of Rs. 53000) is re-employed as a Deputy Secretary in an organization with grade pay of Rs. 7600. In this case, on re-employment, his basic pay will continue to be Rs. 61700/-. However, his grade pay on re-employment will be Rs. 7600 and the pay in the pay band Rs. 54,100. Thereafter, the non-ignorable part of the pension will be reduced from the pay so fixed. Para 4(d) In the case of persons retiring before attaining the age of 55 years and who are re-employed, pension (including PEG and other forms of retirement benefits) shall be ignored for initial pay fixation in the following extent: - (i) In the case of ex-servicemen who held posts below Commissioned officer rank in Defence Forces and in the case of civilians who held posts below Group ‘A’ posts at the time of their retirement, the entire pension and pension equivalent of retirement benefits shall be ignored. (ii) In the Case of Commissioned Service officers belonging to the Defence Forces and Civilian Pensioners who held Group ‘A’ posts at the time of their retirement, the first Rs. 4000/- of the pension and pension equivalent retirement benefits shall be ignored. 25. The learned Tribunal, at the outset, has observed that the matter related to the pay fixation of the petitioners and involved a question of interpretation of the rules issued by Department of Personnel & Training and circulated by Railways. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal also observed that both the petitioners as well as Railways had based their case on the same office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-3). 26. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal also observed that both the petitioners as well as Railways had based their case on the same office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-3). 26. This court finds that para-4(a) of the said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010, clearly stipulates that re-employed pensioners would be allowed to draw pay only in the prescribed pay-scale/pay-structure of the post, in which, they are re-employed and no protection of the scales of pay/pay-structure of the post held by them prior to retirement shall be given. Meaning thereby, the admissible pay-scale of re-employed pensioners would be only the scale of the post to which the person applies. As per para-4(d) of the said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010, in case of non-commissioned officers retiring before the age of 55 years and who are re-employed, the entire pension and pension equivalent of retirement benefits shall be ignored. There is no doubt that the petitioners would be covered by para-4(d)(i) of the said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010, but the bone of contention is as to whether they would be governed by para-4(b)(i) or para-4(b)(ii). 27. This Court finds that as per para-4(b)(i), the persons like the petitioners, are entitled to their entire pension being ignored for initial pay fixation and it clearly indicates that in all cases where the pension is fully ignored, the initial pay on re-employment shall be fixed as per the entry pay in the revised pay-structure of re-employed post applicable in case of direct recruits appointed on or after 01.01.2006 as notified vide Section-II, Part-A of First Schedule to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. For the purposes of applicability of para-4(b)(i), the pre-condition is that the re-employed pensioner should be entitled for the pension to be fully ignored and his appointment is after 01.01.2006. These two conditions are fully satisfied by the petitioners and accordingly, para-4(b)(i) of the said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 is applicable to the petitioners. 28. So far as para-4(b)(ii) is concerned, it is applicable for those persons where the entire pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for pay fixation and in such cases, the initial basic pay on re-employment is to be fixed at the same stage as the last basic pay drawn before retirement with certain further stipulations made in para-4(b)(ii) of said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the pension of the petitioners has been fully ignored at the time of fixation of pay and that the petitioners are drawing full pension out of their ex-employment and accordingly, the petitioners cannot claim pay fixation under para-4(b)(ii) of said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010. 29. Further this Court is of the view that the said provisions contained in paras-4(a), 4(b) and 4(d) are required to be read together. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioners that by virtue of para-4 (d), the entire pension would be ignored and while fixation of pay, they would be entitled to pay protection of any manner by virtue of para-4 (b)(ii) of the said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010, is devoid of any merits. There being no dispute that the petitioners are entitled for full pension which is to be fully ignored upon re-employment, they cannot escape the applicability of para-4(b)(i) of the office memorandum dated 05.04.2010. 30. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-4 which is a circular issued by the Department of Personnel, Ministry of Railways dated 24.07.2013 to submit that the office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training is also applicable on the Ministry of Railways. This Court finds that there is no dispute that said office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 is applicable to the petitioners, but the dispute is on the interpretation of the same. 31. The learned counsel has also referred to one letter dated 18.06.2014 (annexure-5) said to have been issued by Western Railway and has submitted that this letter clarified about fixation of pay of ex-servicemen on their re-appointment in railway on or after 01.01.2006 and clause-5 of the letter dated 18.06.2014, is quoted as under :- “(i) The benefit of ignoring the entire pension is to be given only for those ex-servicemen who retired before attaining the age of 55 years and held posts below commissioned officers rank in the defence forces at the time of their retirement and their pension will not be deducted from the pay so fixed vide para-4(d) of the same letter dated 05th April, 2010. (ii) The ex-servicemen retired at the age of 55 years and above shall not be granted such benefits and therefore an amount equivalent to the revised pension is to be deducted from the pay so fixed. (ii) The ex-servicemen retired at the age of 55 years and above shall not be granted such benefits and therefore an amount equivalent to the revised pension is to be deducted from the pay so fixed. All allowance will be continued on the last pay drawn so fixed and then in total revised amount equivalent to pension is to be deducted.” 32. The clause 5(i) of the letter dated 18.06.2014 (annexure-5) said to have been issued by Western Railway clearly indicates that the benefit of ignoring the entire pension is to be given only to those persons who qualify the criteria mentioned in clause 5(i) and there would be no deduction from the pay so fixed by the railways. This court finds that this letter dated 18.06.2014 (annexure-5) has nothing to do on the point as to whether such persons would be entitled to pay protection as provided under para 4(b) (ii) of office memorandum dated 05.04.2010. Accordingly, the letter dated 18.06.2014 (annexure-5) does not help the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. 33. This Court further finds that the learned CAT has interpreted the aforesaid provisions contained in paras-4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii) and 4(d) of the aforesaid office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 and summarized the findings as follows: - “10. From the above, the scheme of pay fixation of re-employed pensioners can be briefly summarized as follows: - (i) The pay scale admissible will be only for the scale of the post to which a person applies. If he was earlier in a higher pay scale, that has no relevance. [As per para 4(a) of OM dated 05.04.2010]. (ii) Now we come to the issue of pay fixation in the pay band or pay scale. There are two different provisions, one for those whose entire pensionary benefits are not ignored. In their case, their initial pay is fixed at the same stage as the last pay drawn at the time of retirement, from which the non-ignorable part of the pension shall be reduced from the pay to so fixed (as per para 4(b)(ii) of the OM dated 05.04.2010). (iii) The second category is whose entire pension is to be ignored. This pertains primarily to ex-serviceman who held posts below commissioned officer’s rank in the Defence Forces and who retired below the age of 55 failing under para 4(d)(i) of the said OM. (iii) The second category is whose entire pension is to be ignored. This pertains primarily to ex-serviceman who held posts below commissioned officer’s rank in the Defence Forces and who retired below the age of 55 failing under para 4(d)(i) of the said OM. Since the applicants are below commissioned officers rank and retired below age of 55, they fall under the category of 4 (d)(i). For such persons the relevant provision for pay fixation is para 4(b)(i) which stipulates that in cases where the pension is fully ignored, the initial pay on re-employment shall be fixed as per the entry pay in the revised pay structure of the re-employed post. 11. The confusion arises because the applicants are under the presumption that they can get the benefit of full pension mentioned under para 4(d)(i) and pay protection as in para 4(b)(ii) of the DoP&T OM dated 05.04.2010. This presumption is erroneous, because 4(b)(ii) specifically refers to the cases where the entire pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for pay fixation. In all cases where the pension is fully ignored, the relevant provision is para 4(b)(i) which provides that the initial pay on re-employment shall be fixed as per the entry pay in the revised pay structure of the re-employed post.” 34. After analyzing the aforesaid provisions, the learned CAT has held that there is no ambiguity that in cases where pension is to be entirely ignored, as is the case of the petitioners, the initial pay on re-employment has to be fixed as per the entry pay and accordingly, upheld the decision of the respondent authorities in principle. So far as the recovery is concerned, the learned CAT by a well-reasoned order set-aside the orders of recovery of the excess amount already paid to the petitioners and partly allowed the O.A. This part of the impugned order is not under challenge before this Court. 35. This Court also finds that the learned CAT has also considered some of the cases cited by the petitioners, wherein re-employed persons were given benefit of pay protection, but refused to go by those instances as the matter related to interpretation of rule and any interpretation given by the authorities one way or the other was not binding on CAT. This Court also finds that the learned CAT has also considered some of the cases cited by the petitioners, wherein re-employed persons were given benefit of pay protection, but refused to go by those instances as the matter related to interpretation of rule and any interpretation given by the authorities one way or the other was not binding on CAT. This court is of the considered view that there is sound reason assigned by the learned CAT in not being guided by any interpretation given by the authorities one way or the other. This court is of the considered view that any interpretation given by the authorities one way or the other and consequent benefit if any given to one person or the other is not binding on this court and accordingly, the instances cited by the petitioners stating about claimed benefit being extended to some other persons has no bearing in this case. 36. Further, this Court also does not wish to make any pronouncement in connection with the pay-scales given to ex-servicemen whose instances have been referred to by the petitioners, particularly when they are not parties before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not placed any such order giving interpretation to the aforesaid provisions of office memorandum dated 05.04.2010 by any Co-ordinate Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal or by any court. 37. This Court is of the considered view that the interpretation which has been given by learned CAT is the correct interpretation and there is no reason to differ with such interpretation. The learned CAT has further rightly dealt with the interpretation given to these rules by other departments of the Government and has rightly held that those examples cannot over-ride the specific provisions of government orders and those examples are not binding in view of clear provision in the aforesaid office memorandum dated 05.04.2010.This court in the above paragraphs has also independently examined and interpreted the relevant provisions and has come to the same findings as learned CAT in the impugned order. 38. Accordingly, the present writ petition is bereft of any merits and is hereby dismissed.