JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Union of India has challenged a judgment and order dated 21.03.2022, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, allowing the Original Application No.258 of 2017 filed by the opposite party. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the opposite party Nand Lal Prasad was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat in the year 1997. In furtherance of a notification dated 12.08.2009, issued by Government of India regarding appointment on permanent absorption basis to fill up the vacant posts of Lower Division Clerks, Junior Accountants and Senior Accountants in various offices of the Controllers of Communication Accounts, the opposite party submitted an application for the post of Junior Assistant and he was selected and appointed on 03.09.2010 and he joined his duties on the aforesaid post on 14.10.2010. Although, the opposite party was drawing Rs.13,650/-as basic pay in his previous Organziation, after absorption his basic pay was fixed at Rs.13,030/-only and the opposite party submitted representations against wrong fixation of pay which were rejected by means of orders dated 08.03.2017 and 05.06.2017 and the opposite party had filed the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the aforesaid orders and requesting for fixation of his salary in terms of Fundamental Rule 22 (1) (a) (i) with effect from the date of absorption i.e. 14.10.2010. Learned Tribunal has allowed the original application. Learned Tribunal has rejected the contention of the petitioner-Union of India that Fundamental Rule 22 (1) (a) (i) relates to fixation of pay of those employees who have been appointed from similar pattern of scales of pay but it would not apply to the opposite party because his parent Organization Kandla Port Trust is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India and it has a different patterns of pay scale. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Union of India has submitted that as earlier to his absorption the opposite party was working in a Public Sector Undertaking the fixation of pay will be governed by the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2010, which specifically deals with the matter of fixation of pay of candidates working in Public Sector Undertakings and Fundamental Rule 22 (1) (a) (i) will not apply for fixation of salary of the opposite party. 5. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh submitted that the pay of the opposite party has to be fixed only as per para 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2013, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training as it concerns pay fixation matters of employees coming from Public Sector Units. 6. As has already been noticed above, the process of appointment on permanent basis of Group-C (non-gazetted) post in the Department of Telecommunication as one time measure was initiated by issuance of Office Memorandum dated 12.08.2009 and it was in furtherance of this Office Memorandum that the petitioner had applied, was selected and appointed in the Department of Telecommunication. After issuance of the aforesaid notification dated 12.08.2009, the Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2010 was issued providing that the method of pay fixation in respect of those appointed on or after 01.01.2006 will be as under: "In case of candidates working in Public Sector Undertakings, Universities, Semi-Government Institutions or Autonomous Bodies, who are appointed as direct recruits on or after 1.1.2006 on selection through interview by a properly constituted agency including Departmental Authorities making recruitment directly, their initial pay may be fixed by granting them the Grade Pay attached to the post. Further, their pay in the Pay Band may be fixed at a stage so that the pay in the Pay Band + Grade Pay and DA as admissible in the government, protects the pay + DA already being drawn by them in their parent organizations. The pay in Pay Band fixed under this formulation will not be fixed at a stage lower than Entry Pay in the Revised Pay Structure (corresponding to the Grade Pay applicable to the post) for direct recruits on or after 1.1.2006 as notified vide Section II, Part A of First Schedule to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. The pay in Pay Band fixed under this formulation will not be fixed at a stage lower than Entry Pay in the Revised Pay Structure (corresponding to the Grade Pay applicable to the post) for direct recruits on or after 1.1.2006 as notified vide Section II, Part A of First Schedule to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. The pay in Pay Band fixed under this formulation will not exceed Rs.67000/-, the minimum of the Pay Band PB-4." 7. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the opposite party has drawn attention of the court to a report of the Committee for permanent absorption of Lower Division Clerks (TA), Junior Accountants and Senior Accountants in the Department of Telecommunication as one time measure, Clause 4.5 whereof provides that fixation of pay of the candidates upon their final selection will be made in the following manner: "(a) Pay of the candidates who will be appointed on permanent absorption basis to higher post will be fixed under FR-22 (1) (a) (i) and (b) Pay of the candidates who will be appointed to equivalent post as held by them in their parent department/cadre will be fixed at the same stage as drawn in their parent cadre..." 8. Mr. Praveen Kumar has submitted that as per the recommendation of the Committee formed by the Government itself, the salary of the opposite party has to be fixed under Fundamental Rule 22 (1) (a) (i). He has further submitted that Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2010 has been issued subsequent to the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 12.08.2009 regarding the appointment on permanent absorption basis and, therefore, fixation of salary upon absorption cannot be regulated by an office Memorandum which was not in existence on the date of issuance of Office Memorandum for absorption of employees. 9. We have gone through the records and considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is evident from the record that previously the opposite party was working in Kandla Port Trust, which is a Public Sector Undertaking. He applied for appointment on permanent absorption in the Department of Telecommunication in furtherance of a notification dated 12.08.2009. 10. It is evident from the record that previously the opposite party was working in Kandla Port Trust, which is a Public Sector Undertaking. He applied for appointment on permanent absorption in the Department of Telecommunication in furtherance of a notification dated 12.08.2009. Although, the Office Memorandum dated on 30.03.2010 was issued subsequent to the issuance of notification dated 12.08.2009, after issuance of Office Memorandum, the Committee formed by Government of India recommended on 29.06.2010 recommended that pay of candidates appointed on permanent absorption basis to higher post will be fixed under Fundamental Rule 22 (1) (a) (i) and these recommendations were forwarded by Director (SEA), Government of India, Department of Telecommunication to all PCCA/CCAS with letter stating that the report of the Committee had been duly approved by the competent authority for guidance and necessary action. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the salary of the opposite party cannot be fixed under Fundamental Rule 22 (1) (a) (i) appears to be erroneous. 11. It is also significant to note that after the issuance of Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2010, on 10.08.2011, the Government of India has issued certain clarification and regarding method of fixation of pay it has been stated that "it has already been clarified that the pay fixation will be done in the following manner: (a) pay of the officials absorbed in higher post will be fixed under FR 22 (1) (a) (i), (b) Pay of officials who are appointed in equivalent post will be fixed at the same stage." 12. Learned Tribunal has further recorded that the opposite party (applicant before the Tribunal) has filed a supplementary affidavit stating that similarly situated persons are already getting the benefit which is being claimed by him. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the Union of India either before learned Tribunal or before this Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal is based on sound reasons and it does not suffer from any illegality, so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The writ petition lacks merit and, it is accordingly dismissed.