JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. 1. Respondents – applicants working as Auditors Grade –I in Khadi and Village Industries Commission have already undergone a rigmarole of previous litigation at the hands of the petitioner for non-granting them the upgradation of pay scale in parity with the counter-parts in the Central Government. 2. Khadi and Village Industries Commission has its own Act called Khadi and Village Industry Commission Act, 1956, and Regulations of 2007. Section 17 of the aforementioned Act envisaged that the Central Government after due appropriation made by the parliament by law in this behalf, pay to the commission in each financial year such sums as may be considered necessary for the performance of the functions of the Commission under this Act. 3. Similarly Regulation No.3 provides that the Commission may with the prior approval of the Central Government, adopt for its officers and the employees scales of pay and allowances taking into account the rates fixed by the Government of India for the employees of similar categories. By implying the aforementioned provisions of Act and Commission, Ext.P10 dated 20.10.2005 was passed rejecting the case of the applicants for upgradation of pay scale in the absence of any approval from the Central Government. 4. The aforementioned action was assailed before this Court vide Writ Petition No.32333 of 2008 and this Court vide judgment dated 02.02.2011 quashed the aforementioned order and directed the petitioner ie., the Commission to pass a fresh order in accordance with the observation made in the judgment. 5. The aforementioned order was assailed before the Division Bench in W.A.No.656 of 2012, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.08.2012. Matter was also taken to the Supreme Court vide SLP (Civil) No.38471 of 2012 which was dismissed on 27.10.2014. Thereafter, an interim application No.7555 of 2015 was submitted by the Commission regarding the applicability of date of upgradation of pay scales. However, in paragraph No.11 of the application it was stated that they have intention to implement the upgradation of the pay of the respondents – applicants with effect from 20.10.2005. 6. The aforementioned interim application was rejected vide order dated 14.12.2015. However, in paragraph No.11 of the application it was stated that they have intention to implement the upgradation of the pay of the respondents – applicants with effect from 20.10.2005. 6. The aforementioned interim application was rejected vide order dated 14.12.2015. Thereafter, an order dated 28.04.2016 Ext.A29 was passed granting the similar pay scale as has been granted to the Central Government employees with effect from the date of passing of the order, which was assailed before the Tribunal vide OA No.8677 of 2016. Learned Tribunal vide order aforementioned allowed the O.A. 7. Sri.Rajasekharan Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner – Khadi and Village Industries Commission emphatically relied upon the provisions of Section 17 of the 1956 Act as well as Regulation 3 in support of the same contentions which were raised in the previous round of litigation as well as before the Central Administrative Tribunal to contend that until and unless there is a proposal by the Government for fixing the budget, the financial burden cannot be fastened upon the Commission to grant the pay scales at par with the counter-parts working in the Central Government. In support of the contention, also relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors v. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors dated 11.08.2005 Appeal (Civil) No.129 of 2003 wherein the cut-off date fixed by the department was accepted as also in State of Rajasthan And Anr. v. Amrit Lal Gandhi dated 10.01.1997. 8. On the other hand, Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that finding of fact and law arrived at by the Tribunal do not require any interference as the similar stand has already been negated in the previous round of litigation. No explanation has come forth in not implementing the order as late as in April 2016, though in the application of 2015 in paragraph No.11, intention was reflected for implementing the order with effect from 20.10.2005. Thus the applicability of Section 17 and Regulation 3 would be of no consequence and urged this Court for dismissal of O.P.(CAT) with exemplary costs. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit. 10. Thus the applicability of Section 17 and Regulation 3 would be of no consequence and urged this Court for dismissal of O.P.(CAT) with exemplary costs. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit. 10. Section 17 and Regulation 3 on perusal, no doubt, envisage grant of financial aid to the Commission, but that fact has already been negated in the earlier round of litigation by the Single Bench, Division Bench as well as by the Supreme Court. Those orders are not in dispute, therefore we are not extracting the relevant portions of judgments to avoid repetition. No explanation has come forth in passing the order in April 2016 giving the benefit to the respondents – applicants from the date of passing of the order. We would be failing in duty in not extracting paragraph No.11 of application: 11. In this context it is respectfully submitted that Khadi & Village Industries Commission intends to implement the up- gradation of pay of respondents 2 to 4 w.e.f 20th October 2005 and the actual financial benefits will be extended after additional budget is provided by the Ministry. 11. The Tribunal noticing all the facts, in paragraph No.8 to 10 laid as under: 8. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Single Bench and Division Bench in this case. As observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the clarification petition, there was no dispute raised regarding the date of implementation either before the Single Bench or before the Division Bench. Admittedly the impugned order Annexure P10 in the Writ Petition was issued on 20.10.2005. The respondents considered the up-gradation of scale of Auditor-I/Assistant Accountant Assistant Lecturer, Artist and Hindi Translator from GH Junior Rs.4,500-7,000 to Rs.5,000-8,000/- After consideration the up-gradation of scale of Junior Hindi Translator was allowed with conditions "(i) upgraded pay scale will be admissible prospectively from the date of issue of orders, and (ii) full matching savings will be provided." 9. From this it can be seen that the up-gradation of Hindi Translator was implemented prospectively w.e.f. 20.10.2005. The respondents did not agree to the proposal for up-gradation of pay scales of the applicants and the said order disallowing up-gradation which relates to the applicants was quashed. From this it can be seen that the up-gradation of Hindi Translator was implemented prospectively w.e.f. 20.10.2005. The respondents did not agree to the proposal for up-gradation of pay scales of the applicants and the said order disallowing up-gradation which relates to the applicants was quashed. The Single Bench thereafter directed the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with the findings and recommendation of the respondents. The applicants also in this case have not challenged the date of implementation of up-gradation granted to by the respondents to Junior Hindi Translators in Exhibit P10. So we find that the applicants are also entitled to get up-gradation of pay w.e.f. 20.10.2005 the date on which the similarly placed Junior Hindi Translators were granted financial up-gradation. There is no merit in the other contentions raised by the respondents regards the authority to grant financial up-gradation and the discretion vested on respondent No. 2 to fix the date of implementation, as the judgment has become final. The applicants have not made out a special case that Auditor- 1 is entitled to get the up-gradation from an earlier date than the Junior Hindi Translators were granted up- gradation either in the Writ Petition or in the Writ Appeal. So we find that applicants are not entitled to get a separate date for up-gradation of scale. The order of respondent No. 2 granting upgradation of scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 to Auditor-I with effect from 28.4.2016 is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders at Annexures A29 and A30 granting up-gradation of scale so far as it relates to the date of implementation will stand quashed. The applicants are entitled to get their scale upgraded from Rs. 4,500-7,000/- to Rs. 5,000-8,000/- in the pre-revised pay scale notionally we.f. 20.10.2005 ie. the date on which the similarly situated Junior Hindi Translators were granted financial up-gradation and also notionally in the corresponding scale in the revised pay band of Rs. 9,300- 34,800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9,300- 34,800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicants are entitled to the arrears for 3 years period before the date of the petition along with all consequential benefits, if any, after re-fixing their pay as aforesaid. We are guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr . v. Tarsem Singh in Civil Appeal No.5151-5152 of 2008 which have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of petition. We adopt the same principle in this case also.” 12. In our considered view, the aforesaid findings are based upon appreciation of the previous round of litigation as well as the fact that there is no explanation in not granting the benefit when the petitioner – respondent before the Tribunal had lost the their claim. There is no quarrel to the judgment aforementioned but the fact is that the aforementioned judgment is based on the facts and the applicability of the provisions of the Act and not with regard to the controversy involved and therefore the ratio therein cannot be made applicable. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, O.P.(CAT) is dismissed.