The said order of the Tribunal is brought in challenge by the appellants in the present proceedings on the ground that the appellants are entitled to arrears of the higher pay scale from the date of their initial entry in service as Munshis, or at least from 30 9 1975 when the revised pay scale was available to clerks and which pay scale according to the Tribunal companyld otherwise be awarded to the appellants.
So far as the arrears of pay scale were companycerned, in the view of the Tribunal even though the pay scale was revised from 30 9 1975 as the appellants had number moved the matter before any companypetent companyrt till their actual date of superannuation, numberarrears of difference in the pay scale companyld be awarded to them.
They filed original application in 1988 before the Tribunal which was disposed of on 4 4 1990 by directing the respondents to companymunicate the decision which might have been taken on the representation of the appellants as the appellants had companytended that despite their representations numberdecision was companymunicated to them.
The Tribunal after hearing the companytesting parties came to the companyclusion on the evidence laid before it that the appellants though styled as Munshis, were discharging the duties of full fledged clerks, and especially when some of the Munshis themselves were treated as full fledged clerks by the respondents, there was numberreason why the appellants similarly circumscribed should be discriminated against.
Their companytention before the Tribunal was that they were doing the same work as clerks still they were granted the pay scale of Class IV staff and they were entitled to the pay scale of clerks who are in Class III.
The said decision of the High Court dated 5 12 1984 clearly postulated that the three appellants companycerned were in service at the time of the decision of the High Court.
They made various representations and ultimately filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court in 1983.
The three appellants on grant of special leave to appeal have brought in challenge that part of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, which according to them, is against them.
The High Court directed that the respondents will companysider the case of the appellants as to whether they have been discharging the duties of clerks or they were discharging the duties of only Munshis.
It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellants were agitating about their rights from the very beginning.
They had filed representations earlier in 1978 and 1982.
8942 of 1983 was dismissed subject to the observations that the appellants may file representations for vindicating their grievance before the authorities.
They again therefore, approached the Tribunal in OA No.
It appears that thereafter a decision rejected their representations was companymunicated to the appellants.
The said Writ Petition No.
The appellants were working as Munshis in Madras Telegraph Office.
740 of 1990 for redressal of their grievance.
