recommendations dated 29.09.2010 of the Dr. S.K. Das Committee, disposed of the O.A. by issuing the directions extracted hereinabove. 8. Aggrieved by the alleged non-implementation of the said order, the respondents filed the aforesaid contempt petition, wherein the learned Tribunal made the observations quoted above. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the recommendations of the Dr. S.K. Das Committee had not been accepted by the petitioners. She submits that, in view thereof, no directions could have been issued by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the said recommendations. 10. She further submits that the petitioners had placed the respondents in the correct pay scale in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, the observations made by the learned Tribunal in its Order dated 19.10.2016 were in fact, an attempt to expand the scope of the earlier Order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal itself. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are entitled to the pay scales as recommended in the Office Memorandum dated 24.07.1990. She contends that the respondents’ pay scales were, in fact, reduced pursuant to the recommendations of the Dr. S.K. Das Committee, and that the respondents have been subjected to discrimination inasmuch as, three other officers have been granted pay scales in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 24.07.1990, whereas the respondents have been granted pay scales only in terms of the recommendations of the Dr. S.K. Das Committee.
