JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.06.2016 and 09.08.2018 passed in OA/051/00272/2014 and OA/051/00184/2016 respectively by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT), Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Court at Ranchi as contained in Annexure-5 and 6. The dispute relates to the claim of stepping up of pay on the part of the applicant, which has been declined by the learned CAT. The legal issue for consideration was framed by this Court on 25.02.2020. Since the matter related to pay fixation and lied in the domain of financial experts, Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) was impleaded as respondent and asked to file its response. For better appreciation, the relevant extract of the order dated 25.02.2020 is quoted herein below: “The Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad Mr. Chandra Shekhar Azad has appeared today and explained the pay fixation of the applicant and the private respondent. There is a claim of stepping up of pay on the part of the applicant which has been declined by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Both the employees started their career from the post of Goods Guard (Running Category) appointed on the same day 10th November 1986. Applicant got promoted as Section Controller on 7th September 1993. On such promotion during his pay fixation, he got the benefit of 30% of basic pay as running pay element of Rs.1410/-. Private respondent got promoted w.e.f. 26th February 1997 and also got the benefit of 30% of basic pay as running pay element in terms of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I (1989 Edition) Rule 924 para-(i)(d). So far, the application of the rule to both the employees stands on equal footing. However, private respondent had been granted another component of 30% of basic pay as running pay element on fixation of his pay on 01.01.1996 after 5th pay revision. This resulted lesser salary drawn by the applicant i.e. @ Rs.6700/- w.e.f. 1st March 1997 compared to the private respondent as on 26th February 1997 at Rs.7,250/- in the lower scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- on his promotion as Section Controller. The applicant had got promoted as Section Controller on 7th September 1993 itself. This difference has grown up gradually during subsequent pay fixations and the applicant draws Rs.86,100/- as on 1st July 2019 while private respondent draws Rs.88,700/- as on the same date. The applicant had got promoted as Section Controller on 7th September 1993 itself. This difference has grown up gradually during subsequent pay fixations and the applicant draws Rs.86,100/- as on 1st July 2019 while private respondent draws Rs.88,700/- as on the same date. It is also to be taken note that applicant stood promoted as Chief Controller on 18th February 2005 while private respondent continues on the next promoted post of Deputy Chief Controller w.e.f. 29th June 2001 till date. The comparative chart of pay fixation of both the employees undertaken from time to time with the relevant extract of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Rule 924 para (i)(d); the pay fixation of the two employees in 1997 and notification of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) dated 8th October 1997, RBE No.133/97 has been furnished by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Dhanbad to justify the pay fixation of the private respondent. Though attention has been drawn to Rule 7 “Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale” under the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1997 (Annexure-D) but this Rule does not stipulate grant of 30% of basic pay as running pay element which has been granted on 01.01.1996 to the private respondent as a result of pay fixation under Vth PRC. On being specifically asked, the Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad is not sure if this particular pay fixation of both the employees was subjected to audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Since the matter relates to pay fixation and is in the domain of financial experts, we deem it proper to implead the Comptroller and Auditor General of India as respondent in the present writ petition. Let the impleadment be carried out by learned counsel for the writ petitioner during course of the day. Learned S. Srivastava, learned counsel on the panel of CAG, accepts notice. Let his name be reflected in the cause list henceforth on the respondent side. Shri Srivastava would seek instruction from the competent authority on the subject and, if so required, file an affidavit containing their stand. Matter be posted on 24th March 2020.” 3. Learned CAG conducted an audit exercise concerning these two employees, the applicant and respondent no.4. Let his name be reflected in the cause list henceforth on the respondent side. Shri Srivastava would seek instruction from the competent authority on the subject and, if so required, file an affidavit containing their stand. Matter be posted on 24th March 2020.” 3. Learned CAG conducted an audit exercise concerning these two employees, the applicant and respondent no.4. The affidavit of respondent CAG gives a picture of the result of audit exercise at para 11, quoted herein below: “That from perusal of the records clearly shows that as on 01.01.1996 the petitioner and Sri D.K. Mishra were on different post and pay scales, accordingly, their pays were fixed. Sri D.K. Mishra worked more time in the post of Goods Guard and due to the benefit of running allowance (running pay element) in the Goods Guard, part 30% of his basic pay as running allowance was considered while fixing the pay as per para (i) (d) of 924 Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I (1989 Edition) on his promotion to the post of SCNL after implementation of 5th Pay Commission. Consequently, the pay raised considerably due to pay hike after implementation of 5th Pay Commission, whereas the pay of the petitioner was debarred from the running allowance being the post held as Dy. Chief Controller. The higher the pay of junior was only due to inclusion of element of running allowance. Thus the fixation of pay advised by DPO in his counter affidavit was found correct.” 4. When the matter was taken up on 04.01.2022, learned counsel for the Railways Mr. Pradip Modi sought time to seek instructions on the specific observations made by this Court in the order dated 25.02.2020. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 28.01.2022. The rejoinder thereto has also been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Railways has taken us to the relevant provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual (Volume-I) 1989 Edition, Rule 924 (i) (d). He has also taken us to the notification of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) dated 08.10.1997 (RBE-133/97), Rule 7 “Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale” under Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. Learned counsel for the Railways has taken us to the relevant provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual (Volume-I) 1989 Edition, Rule 924 (i) (d). He has also taken us to the notification of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) dated 08.10.1997 (RBE-133/97), Rule 7 “Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale” under Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. Learned counsel for the Railways has, in particular, refers to sub rule (1) (A) and (B) to explain how the 30% additional allowance was granted twice to the private respondent while fixing his pay on 01.01.1996 upon 5th P.R.C and thereafter again on his promotion as Section Controller w.e.f. 26.02.1997. The grant of second running allowance has in effect resulted in the grievance of the petitioner. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that both the petitioner and the respondent no.4 got promoted as Section Controller on different dates 07.09.1993 and 26.02.1997. On his promotion as Section Controller in February 1997 there was no basis to grant special allowance in the nature of running pay element to the respondent no. 4 once he had been granted the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that para 15 of the last supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent Railways runs contrary to the statements made at para 11 in particular (a) depicting the basic pay as Goods Guard of the respondent no. 4 on 26.02.1997 in the scale of Rs.4500-125- 7000=Rs.5375. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the extract of Annexure-4, in particular, Note 9, which provides for stepping up of pay of a Railway servant promoted to a higher post before the 1st day of January 1996 in case he draws less pay in the revised scale than his junior, who is promoted to the higher post on or after 01.01.1996 subject to fulfillment of conditions at clause (a) to (d) and clause 2. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Suffice it to say that the claim of stepping up of pay on the part of the applicant was raised by him after considerable delay in O.A. No. 051/00272/2014 in 2014. Learned CAT even after noticing the delay, went on to examine the claim on merits while ultimately declining the same for the reasons contained in para 6 of the impugned order dated 27.06.2016, quoted herein below: “6. Learned CAT even after noticing the delay, went on to examine the claim on merits while ultimately declining the same for the reasons contained in para 6 of the impugned order dated 27.06.2016, quoted herein below: “6. Heard the parties and considered their submissions/arguments/documents. The facts/views which emerge are as below:- a) It appears from the pleadings that the cause of action arose as early as 1997 whereas the applicant has approached this Tribunal only in 2014. In MA 58 of 2016 filed for condonation of delay, the applicant merely states that he has spent nearly one and half decade ‘exhausting his remedy”. Obviously, therefore, the respondents have argued that this OA is hopelessly barred by limitation. This Tribunal agrees that there is substantive merit in the arguments of the respondents and that the applicant is clearly in default in not approaching this Tribunal much earlier. That, a series of representations submitted to the respondents do not, by themselves, make him eligible to claim waiver of the limitation period. Be that as it may, this Tribunal has, given the nature of claims, kept an open mind on the subject and has taken up the OA for adjudication on merits. b) In this context also, it is noted that there is absolutely no dispute that the applicant is senior to the private respondent 4, Shri D.K. Mishra from the date both were initially appointed to the post of Train Goods Guards, i.e. on 10.11.1986. The respondents have also confirmed this factual position. Significantly, there are also no claims of error in the pay fixation of the applicant, per se. That his claim for higher pay is only on grounds of higher emoluments being given to his junior. c) That having been said, it is equally clear from the records that the career progression of the applicant, apart from the initial appointment, has been one or two step ahead of the private respondent 4. That, while the private respondent 4 continued as Goods Guard till 26.2.1997, the applicant was not only promoted to the Section Controller on 26.7.1993 but was further promotion as Dy. Chief Controller we.f. 29.3.1996. It is, thus, obvious that pursuant to their initial appointment, the service trajectory of the applicant was different from that of private respondent 4 and that the former was, in real terms, two steps ahead of the latter. Chief Controller we.f. 29.3.1996. It is, thus, obvious that pursuant to their initial appointment, the service trajectory of the applicant was different from that of private respondent 4 and that the former was, in real terms, two steps ahead of the latter. d) Therefore, at the time of pay fixation under the 5th CPC i.e. from 1.1.1996, the applicant’s pay was rightly fixed at Rs.6200 in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 as per his status as Senior Controller. On the other hand, the pay scale of the private respondent 4 was fixed far below at Rs.5250 in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 since he was still continuing as Goods Guard. It is, thus, obvious that up to this stage, there has been no incorrect or adverse pay fixation in respect of the applicant. Both, he and the private respondent 4 have been given their rightful dues, as per their status in service at that point of time. e) It is axiomatic that a senior’s claim for equal/more pay vis-a-vis his junior can be admissible in a situation where both are similarly situated. This is clearly not the case here. Therefore, to compare pay and claim equivalence in such a situations would amount to comparing apples and oranges. That having been said, it is noted that when the private respondent no.4 was finally granted promotion to the post of Senior Controller w.e.f. 26.2.1997, the applicant was working as Dy. Chief Controller w.e.f. 29.3.1996 and was drawing the emoluments in terms of pay scale admissible to his post. On the other hand, private respondent 4, on promotion, received only the benefits of service as Goods Guard [in the form of Running Allowance @ 30% of the basic pay] at the time of his pay fixation in the post of Senior Controller w.e.f. 26.2.1997. It is this fixation at the level of Rs.7250 which the applicant questions on ground that it is more than what he is getting i.e Rs.6700 w.e.f. 1.3.1997. However, in raising this question, the applicant has clearly ignored [or has chosen to ignore] the fact that while his emoluments are incidental and consequential to his service trajectory/status, the emoluments of the private respondent 4 are also incidental and consequential to a different service trajectory/status. That, the applicant was enjoying a far higher post of Dy. However, in raising this question, the applicant has clearly ignored [or has chosen to ignore] the fact that while his emoluments are incidental and consequential to his service trajectory/status, the emoluments of the private respondent 4 are also incidental and consequential to a different service trajectory/status. That, the applicant was enjoying a far higher post of Dy. Chief Controller at that point of time, whereas the private respondent 4 had only reached the level of Senior Controller. That being the case, any attempted comparison is clearly incongruous. f) From the above enumeration, it is palpably evident that Note 9 (i) of Rule 7 of Railway Service [Revised Pay] Rules, 1997, cannot form the basis for providing reliefs to the applicant who is clearly arguing under a misconception, claiming emoluments which are neither part of his service trajectory/status nor the result of comparison between the two similarly situated persons. Admittedly, both the applicant and the private respondent 4 were appointed together and the applicant was clearly senior to the private respondent 4. However, their careers have moved on two different levels with the applicant moving at faster pace. Therefore, at this point of time, he is only entitled to consequential benefits of his service and he cannot keep looking over his shoulder and claiming higher scale of pay by attempting illogical comparisons. That the career of private respondent 4 has moved at a different pace and level and he is today getting the benefits of his service as per his status. To the extent the applicant and the private respondent 4 are no longer equals and are not similarly placed, claims of injustice or discrimination are not sustained.” Applicant made another attempt to rake up the same issue in O.A./051/00184/2016, which was dismissed on 09.08.2018 by the learned CAT holding as under: “7. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings. It is not in dispute that the controversy raised in this O.A. has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 272/2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2016. We have perused the said order of the Tribunal. We find that the dismissal of the same O.A. was not on the basis of merit but on the ground of limitation. We have perused the said order of the Tribunal. We find that the dismissal of the same O.A. was not on the basis of merit but on the ground of limitation. Be that as it may, as on date as long as the said order of the Tribunal remains in force, controversy raised in the present O.A. cannot be re-adjudicated by the Tribunal. The principle of resjudicata would come in play. It is, however, noted that the reliefs claimed is of recurring in nature. The right course of the applicant is to challenge the order dated 27.06.2016 in O.A. No. 272/2014 of the Tribunal before a higher judicial forum, if he so wishes.” 7. We have considered the case of both the parties in the light of the relevant rule position and we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the order of the learned CAT impugned herein for the following reasons: A. The applicant got promoted as Section Controller on 07.09.1993 and got the benefit of 30% of the basic pay as running pay element. On being promoted as Deputy Chief Controller w.e.f. 29.03.1996, the cadre of the petitioner and the respondent no.4 became separate. Respondent no.4 continued to be in the running cadre as he was working as Goods Guard till 26.02.1997. (B) The R.B.E. No. 133/97, which was referred to in our order dated 25.02.2020 has been brought on record through the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent Railways. The relevant rule 7 (1) (A) and (B) are quoted herein below: 7. Respondent no.4 continued to be in the running cadre as he was working as Goods Guard till 26.02.1997. (B) The R.B.E. No. 133/97, which was referred to in our order dated 25.02.2020 has been brought on record through the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent Railways. The relevant rule 7 (1) (A) and (B) are quoted herein below: 7. Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale: (1) The initial pay of a Railway servant who elects, or is deemed to have elected under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 to be governed by the revised scale on and from the 1st day of January, 1996, shall, unless in any case the President by special order otherwise directs , be fixed separately in respect of his substantive pay in the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have held a lien if it had not been suspended, and in respect of his pay in the officiating post held by him, in the following manner, namely: (A) in the case of all employees: (i) an amount representing 40 percent of the basis pay in the existing scale be added to the ‘existing emoluments’ of the employee: (ii) after the existing emoluments have been so increased, the pay shall thereafter be fixed in the revised scale at the stage next above the amount thus computed. Provided that- (a) If the minimum of the revised scale is more than the amount so arrived at, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised scale: (b) If the amount so arrived at is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay shall be fixed at the maximum of that scale. Provided that- (a) If the minimum of the revised scale is more than the amount so arrived at, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised scale: (b) If the amount so arrived at is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay shall be fixed at the maximum of that scale. Provided further that – Where in the fixation of pay, the pay of Railway servants drawing pay at more than four consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched; that is to say, gets fixed in the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in the revised scale of such of these Railway servants who are drawing pay beyond the first four consecutive stages in the existing scale shall be stepped upto the stage where such bunching occurs, as under, by the grant of increments(s) in the revised scales in the following manner, namely: (a) for Railway servants drawing pay from the 5th upto the 8th stage in the existing scale- by one increment; (b) for Railway servants drawing pay from the 9th upto the 12th stage in the existing scale, if there is bunching beyond the 8th stage-by two increments; (c) for Railway servants drawing pay from the 13th upto the 16th stage in the existing scale, if there is bunching beyond the 12th stage-by three increments. If by stepping up the pay as above, the pay of a Railway servant gets fixed at a stage in the revised scale which is higher than the stage in the revised scale at which the pay of a Railway servant who was drawing pay at the next higher stage or stages in the same existing scale is fixed, the pay of the latter shall also be stepped up only to the extent by which it falls short of that of the former. Provided also that- The fixation thus made shall ensure that every employee will get atleast one increment in the revised scale of pay for every three increments [inclusive of stagnation increments(s), if any] in the existing scale of pay. Provided also that- The fixation thus made shall ensure that every employee will get atleast one increment in the revised scale of pay for every three increments [inclusive of stagnation increments(s), if any] in the existing scale of pay. Explanation: For the purpose of this clause “existing emoluments” shall include, (a) the basic pay in the existing scale ; (b) dearness allowance appropriate to the basic pay admissible at index average 1510 (1960=100), and (c) the amounts of first and second instalments of interim relief admissible on the basic pay in the existing scale; (B) In the case of employees who are in receipt of special pay/allowance in addition to pay in the existing scale which has been recommended for replacement by a scale of pay without any special pay/allowance, pay shall be fixed in the revised scale in accordance with the provisions of clause(A) above except that in such cases “existing emoluments” shall include- (a) the basic pay in the existing scale; (b) existing amount of special pay/allowance: (c) admissible dearness allowance at index average 1510(1960=100) under the relevant orders: and (d) the amounts of first and second installments of interim relief admissible on the basic pay in the existing scale and special pay under relevant orders:” C. Upon implementation of the 5th PRC w.e.f. 01.01.10996, respondent no.4 was granted the special pay allowances of 30% which brought his revised pay to Rs.5250 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as per the chart at para 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit extracted hereunder: a. Basic pay as on 01.01.96 in IVth PC Rs. 1470/in scale Rs. 1200-2040/- b. Dearness allowance @ 148% of the basic pay Rs. 2828/-(i.e Basic pay Rs.1470/+30% of basic pay Rs. 441/-=Rs 1911/there on 148% of Rs.1911= Rs 2828/-) c. 1st Interim Relief Rs.100/- d. 2nd interim relief i.e. 10% of (pay +30% running element) (Rs.1470+Rs.441=Rs.1991) Rs.191/- e. 40% of basic pay Rs. 588/- f. Total (a+b+c+d+e) Rs.5177/- Revised pay is fixed at the stage in Revised scale next above the amount against Rs.5177/- = Rs.5250/- wef 01.01.1996. D. However, the respondent no.4 continued to be in the same running cadre being Goods Guard till he was promoted as Section Controller on 26.02.1997. Then came the application of Rule 924 (i)(d) of the Railway Establishment Manual (Volume-I) 1989 Edition. It is quoted hereunder: “924. D. However, the respondent no.4 continued to be in the same running cadre being Goods Guard till he was promoted as Section Controller on 26.02.1997. Then came the application of Rule 924 (i)(d) of the Railway Establishment Manual (Volume-I) 1989 Edition. It is quoted hereunder: “924. Reckoning of Running Allowance as pay: (i) 30% of the basic pay of running staff shall be reckoned as pay for the following purposes:- (a) ----- (b) ---- (c) ---- (d) Fixation of pay in stationary posts.” Rule 924 (i) provided for 30% of basic pay of running staff as running allowance. This 30% of basic pay was granted to the petitioner when he was promoted as Section Controller w.e.f. 07.09.1993. However his cadre had changed upon his promotion as Deputy Chief Controller in March 1996. Petitioner and the private respondent since then became incumbents of two separate cadres. As such, Note 9, which is part of RBE 133/97 at page 32 of the writ petition (Annexure-4) became inapplicable to the case of the petitioner. Sub clause (a) thereof requires that both the junior and the senior Railway servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical as the same cadre. Petitioner had become Deputy Chief Controller prior to the promotion of respondent no.4 as Section Controller. Respondent no. 4 had continued to remain in the running cadre. E. Learned CAT has taken note of Note 9 of Rule 7 of the Railways Services (Revised Rule) 1997 at para 6(f) of the impugned order, which is quoted in the foregoing paragraphs. The reasoning of the learned CAT therefore appears to be on the correct lines. Petitioner has on a mistaken impression pursued his claim for stepping up of pay dating back to 1997 when respondent no. 4 was granted 30% running pay allowance for the second time on his promotion as Section Controller. The claim though was stale but has been examined on merits by the learned CAT. 8. On re-appreciation of the materials on record, we do not find any error in the impugned orders dated 27.06.2016 and 09.08.2018 passed in OA/051/00272/2014 with MA 051/00058/2016 and OA/051/00184/2016 respectively by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Court at Ranchi warranting interference under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.