ORDER : (MUKESH RAJPUPROHIT J.) 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the Dearness Pay by merging it up to 50% in the basic pay from 01.01.2011 as provided in Circular No.F.104/1/2004-1c dated 01.03.2004 and to pay arrears along with interest @ 18% and cost, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in short are that the petitioner, who was serving as Superintendent (Appeals-II) in the office of Commissioner of Central Excise and was an employee of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, was getting pay as well as Dearness Allowance as and when declared by the Government of India. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide OM No. F.105/1/2004-1c dated 01.03.2004 had conveyed decision of the Hon’ble President of India to merge the Dearness Allowance (for short ‘DA’ hereinafter) equal to 50% of the existing basic pay with the basic pay considering the recommendations contained in Para 105.11 of 5 th CPC’s report, wherein it was recommended that DA should be converted into Dearness Pay each time the Consumer Price Index increase by 50% over the base index used by the Pay Commission. The same was accordingly paid to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that from 01.01.2011, the Consumer Price Index had gone from 50% to 100% and thus, DA should have been automatically merged in the basic pay as this circular was neither rescinded nor amended by the Hon’ble President and thus, same was required to be complied with. But the request of the petitioner was wrongly turned down by the respondents. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred original application (for short ‘OA’ hereinafter) before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘learned tribunal’ hereinafter). The said OA was contested by the respondents by way of filing reply to OA, wherein preliminary objections regarding delay and maintainability of OA were raised. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred original application (for short ‘OA’ hereinafter) before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘learned tribunal’ hereinafter). The said OA was contested by the respondents by way of filing reply to OA, wherein preliminary objections regarding delay and maintainability of OA were raised. It was stand of the respondents that recommendations of 5 th CPC were effective up to 31.12.2005 only as 6 th CPC’s recommendations and Government’s decision thereon with regard to revised scales of pay and DA for civilian employees of the Central Government were made effective from 01.01.2006 vide Notification dated 29.08.2008 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, therefore, plea that said Notification dated 01.03.2004 was neither rescinded nor amended was not tenable as same was with regard to recommendations of 5 th CPC in respect of DA only, which was effective upto 31.12.2005 and the 6 th CPC in its recommendations did not recommend merger of DA with basic pay at any stage. The petitioner filed rejoinder denying submissions of the respondents. After hearing the parties, learned tribunal has passed the Order dated 11.08.2022 rejecting the OA filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide Notification dated 01.03.2004, a direction was issued that DA should have been converted into Dearness Pay each time the CPI increases by 50% over the base index used by the Commission and it was neither rescinded nor amended by the Hon’ble President. But the respondents are not implementing the orders of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditures. He has argued that benefit once granted on the recommendations of the Pay Commission cannot be take away on the recommendations of another Pay Commission. Learned counsel has also submitted that though, the order might have been issued in connection with the recommendations of 5 th CPC but same assumed a statutory position and therefore, has become a standing order unless otherwise directed. Therefore, it has been argued that the respondents are bound to follow the statutory notification as mentioned in the Notification dated 01.03.2004. He has, therefore, prayed to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Therefore, it has been argued that the respondents are bound to follow the statutory notification as mentioned in the Notification dated 01.03.2004. He has, therefore, prayed to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order under challenge and submitted that the Notification dated 01.03.2004 should be read, interpreted and understood as a whole and not in isolation as has been done in the present case. He has argued that Notification dated 01.03.2004 was issued in respect of 5 th CPC and recommendations of the 5 th CPC were effective up to 31.12.2005 only as 6 th CPC and the Government’s decision thereon with regard to revised scales of pay and DA for civilian employees of the Central Government were made effective from 01.01.2006 vide Notification dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, therefore, it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend that said notification was neither rescinded nor amended. He has also submitted that 6 th CPC in its recommendations did not recommend merger of DA with basic pay at any stage. No order/OM in this regard has been issued by the Government thereafter. The petitioner was duly informed about this vide Letters dated 19.03.2024, 24.06.2014 and 11/14.07.2014. He has also submitted that challenge of the petitioner pertains to 2006 after implementation of 6 CPC, whereas, OA has been filed as late as in 2014, which suffers from delay and latches. No explanation for same has been given by the petitioner. He has also submitted that learned tribunal after appreciating entire material on record has rightly passed the order under challenge, which does not warrant any interference. He has, therefore, prayed for rejection of the petition. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 7. In the instant case, 5 th CPC in Para 105.11 of its report had recommended that DA of employees of the Central Government should be converted into Dearness Pay each time the CPI increase by 50% over the base index used by the Pay Commission. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 7. In the instant case, 5 th CPC in Para 105.11 of its report had recommended that DA of employees of the Central Government should be converted into Dearness Pay each time the CPI increase by 50% over the base index used by the Pay Commission. Accordingly, Notification dated 01.03.2004 was issued conveying decision of the Hon’ble President of India to merge Dearness Allowance equal to 50% of the existing basic pay with the basic pay considering the recommendations of 5 th CPC, which were effective only up to 31.12.2005 because 6 th CPC’s recommendations and Government of India’s decision thereon with regard to revised scales of pay and DA for civilian employees of the Central Government were made effective from 01.01.2006 vide Notification dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditures. The recommendations of 5 th CPC were superseded upon implementation of 6 th CPC and no recommendation was thereafter made under 6 th CPC for merger of DA with basic pay at any stage. Therefore, contentions of the petitioner that said notification was neither rescinded nor amended by the Hon’ble President and that earlier recommendations assumed a statutory position and become a standing order, cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that claim of the petitioner pertains to 2006 after implementation of 6 th CPC and the OA was filed in the year 2014 after delay of almost eight years and no explanation regarding such an inordinate delay has been furnished on record. Mere contention of recurring cause of action cannot be a sufficient ground to condone an inordinate delay. In our opinion, the learned tribunal after appreciating entire material on record has passed the order, which does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. In view of above discussions, we do not find that the learned tribunal has erred in passing the order under challenge dated 11.08.2022. 9. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order to costs. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.