JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. 1. This Original Petition is preferred by the Union of India and its officials in the Ministry of Defence (Department of Expenditure) as well as the Directors of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) against the order dated 17.11.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA No.596 of 2013. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the OP(CAT) are as follows:- The respondent in this original petition, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, was appointed as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer (ACIO) Grade II in the Central Finger Print Bureau, CBI on 12.05.1975. The post of ACIO was later re-designated as Sub Inspector (FP) on 28.10.1997. The administrative control of the Central Finger Print Bureau (CFPB) was transferred from the CBI to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) with effect from 01.07.1986 and pursuant thereto, the post held by the applicant in the CBI was transferred to NCRB on 28.12.1987 (Annexure A7). It is significant that on the same day, apart from the post of the applicant one post of Deputy Superintendent (FP) and one post of Inspector (FP) were also transferred from the CBI to the NCRB, which came under a different ministry namely the Ministry of Home Affairs. The CBI however continued to be under the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and Pension. It would appear that the applicant was promoted in the NCRB as Inspector (FP) on 26.06.1988 and as Deputy Superintended (FP) with effect from 7.12.2006. 3. The issue that came up for consideration before the Tribunal was essentially in connection with the implementation of the 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations with effect from 01.01.1986. On implementation of the same, all the ranks in the Central Finger Print Bureau in the NCRB were accorded the same pay scales as in the CBI. By Annexure A9 order dated 8.2.1996 however, the CBI revised the pay scale of the then Dy.SPs from 2000-3500 to 2200-4000 with effect from 01.01.1986. The applicant who was promoted as Deputy Superintended on 07.12.2016 was not given that scale. The applicant, therefore preferred OA No.473 of 2012, which was disposed by the Tribunal with a direction to consider the applicant's representation. The said representation was thereafter rejected by Annexure A19 order dated 15.03.2013. The applicant who was promoted as Deputy Superintended on 07.12.2016 was not given that scale. The applicant, therefore preferred OA No.473 of 2012, which was disposed by the Tribunal with a direction to consider the applicant's representation. The said representation was thereafter rejected by Annexure A19 order dated 15.03.2013. The applicant therefore, once again approached the Tribunal through OA No.569 of 2013, which led to the order impugned in this original petition (CAT). 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order found that the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts of DySPs under the NCRB as also the CBI were essentially the same and in view of the fact that the posts in the NCRB were posts held earlier in CBI the disparity in the pay scales after the separation of the posts from the CBI to the NCRB could not be justified. The Tribunal therefore allowed the original application and directed that the applicant be considered for placement in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 with effect from 07.12.2006. 5. Before us, it is the contention of Sri.T.V.Vinu, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that there was no justification whatsoever for extending the benefits of the 4th CPC recommendations implemented in the case of Deputy Superintendent of Police under the CBI to the DySPs in the Finger Print Bureau attached to the NCRB. It is his submission that since the revision of pay scale for the DSPs in the CBI was effected only through the order dated 08.02.1996 (Annexure A9), and the posts of Sub Inspector (FP), Inspector (FP) and DSP(FP) from the CBI had been transferred to the NCRB well before that date on 28.12.1987, the revision of pay scale envisaged for DSPs in the CBI could not be extended to the DSPs of the Finger Print Bureau attached to NCRB. It is also his contention, placing reliance on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Pramod Bhartiya and ors. (Civil Appeal No.4049 of 1992)(MANU/SC/0060/1993), that in matters of pay fixation it is not for the Tribunal/court to interfere since they are complex matters which are required to be considered by experts in the field and besides they also form part of executive functions which the Tribunal/court is not competent to undertake. v. Pramod Bhartiya and ors. (Civil Appeal No.4049 of 1992)(MANU/SC/0060/1993), that in matters of pay fixation it is not for the Tribunal/court to interfere since they are complex matters which are required to be considered by experts in the field and besides they also form part of executive functions which the Tribunal/court is not competent to undertake. He would also contend that in as much as the fixation of pay scales can have financial implications for the Government, it is not a matter which should be dealt with by the Tribunals/courts. He also points out that even historically, when the Finger Print Bureau was under the same ministry as the CBI, the recruitment rules governing the appointment to the various posts in the Finger Print Bureau were different from the corresponding rules for the various posts in the CBI. He points out that this is an aspect that ought to have been considered by the Tribunal before deciding to interfere with the pay fixation done by the Government. 6. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair, the learned counsel for the respondent that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the fact that the DSPs of the Finger Print Bureau were earlier under the same ministry as the DSPs of the CBI and while so, they were drawing the same scale of pay as the DSPs of the CBI executive wing. It is his contention therefore that in as much as the pay scale of both the category of posts was the same up to 28.12.1987, merely because after that date the DSP (FP) post had been transferred to another department/ministry, it could not lead to a lowering of the pay scale when compared to that accorded to the DSP in the CBI. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. During the course of the hearing and when confronted with the situation wherein we found that the pay of scales of the DSP in the CBI was revised only with effect from 08.02.1996, we enquired with the CGC as to when the proposal that resulted in Annexure A9 order dated 08.02.1996 was initiated. The learned counsel has since produced before us the communication of the CBI (Administrative Wing) which indicates that the parity that was sought pursuant to the 4th CPC recommendation was in respect of posts in the Central Police Organizations under the ministry of Home Affairs. The learned counsel has since produced before us the communication of the CBI (Administrative Wing) which indicates that the parity that was sought pursuant to the 4th CPC recommendation was in respect of posts in the Central Police Organizations under the ministry of Home Affairs. The parity was therefore sought in respect inter alia, of the posts of DSPs in all the Central Police Organizations such as the CRPF, CISF, CBI etc. It is this proposal that finally led to the acceptance by the Government of the revised scale of pay for DSPs in the CBI. The said aspect is significant because we find that the proposal itself was initiated as early as on 31.03.1987, which is well before the posts of Deputy DSP(FP), Inspector (FP) and Sub Inspector (FP) were transferred from the CBI to the NCRB. We would think that at the stage of the initiation of the proposal for parity in the pay of the various posts under the CBI, the initiators of the proposals would have had in mind the case of DSPs (FP) also since the said post was also under the CBI at the relevant point in time. We also find that even after the implementation of the 4th CPC recommendations with effect from 01.01.1986 till 08.02.1996, when the pay was revised for the DSPs in the CBI, the pay scales applicable to the DSP in CBI and the DSP (FP) in NCRB was the same. In otherwords, the parity in pay scales between the two categories of DSPs continued even after the DSP(FP) post was transferred to the NCRB and until 08.02.1996. We find therefore that the Tribunal was correct in relying on Annexure A7 order dated 28.12.1987 to the extent it clearly mentioned that other terms and conditions attached to the posts that were transferred from CBI to NCRB would remain unchanged, to hold that there was no justification for bringing about the variation in the pay scale of the DSP (FP) in the NCRB from that of the DSP in the CBI. 8. Before parting with this case, we must also refer to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the propriety of the Tribunal/this court interfering that the decision of the Government in matters of pay fixation. 8. Before parting with this case, we must also refer to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the propriety of the Tribunal/this court interfering that the decision of the Government in matters of pay fixation. While it cannot be in dispute that in matters of pay fixation this Court would not ordinarily interfere taking note of a fact that matters of pay fixation involve the taking of complex decision based on expert advise which this court is not normally equipped to deal with, the decision in Union of India & Others v. Dineshan.K.K [ (2008) 1 SCC 586 ] clearly empowers the courts to step in when there is a blatant illegality or arbitrariness demonstrated in the actions/inactions of the State. In the instant case, we find that the petitioners themselves had maintained a parity in pay scale between the two posts of DSP namely DSP in the CBI as also the DSP(FP) when it was under the CBI. The position continued after the implementation of the 4th CPC recommendations until 1996 well after the post of DSP (FP) was transferred from the CBI to the NCRB. Under such circumstances, we do not see how the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners can come to his aid since we are not dealing with a case of fixation of pay scale but with a case where a pre-existing parity in pay was upset through a unilateral decision taken in respect of one of the posts, to the exclusion of the other. We are of the view that a denial of parity in the instant case would result in the principal of 'equal pay for equal work' being breached in respect of the incumbents to the posts in question. Resultantly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petitioner shall ensure that the consequential benefits due to the respondent based on the observations in this judgment are granted to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The OP(CAT) fails and is accordingly dismissed.