JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated 9th December, 2002 allowing the Original Application No. 170/2002 preferred by the applicant-respondent, Krishan Gopal. 3. The applicant-respondent has preferred the Original Application before the Tribunal inter alia on the ground that he was recruited as Valveman on 18.1.78 and was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 210-290, which was applicable to skilled grade. However, the applicant was recruited in the year 1978. The recruitment was under Military Engineering (Industrial Class III and IV Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1970, which did not provide for any semi-skilled posts. It was only after the applicant-respondent was recruited as Valveman, by the office memorandum dated 11.1.85, the provision was made that the employees recruited on the skilled post, shall be given semi-skilled grade for first two years and only after completion of two years they will be given skilled grade. 4. The Tribunal found that the Valvemen recruited prior to the Recruitment Rules of 1991 were in fact recruited only in skill grade and were entitled to pay fixation in the scale applicable to the skilled grade employees. Therefore, the initial fixation in the case of respondent-applicant in 1978 a grade below applicable to skilled grade was erroneous. In fact having been given appointment in the skilled grade there was no reason that he should have been fixed in the pay-scale applicable to semi-skilled grade. With this conclusion, the Tribunal directed that applicant is entitled to be fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-400 (as revised 950-1500) from the date of his initial appointment. However, the payment of arrears was restricted to the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the Original Application. 5. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal also referred to its earlier in O.A. Nos. 72/92, 206/95 and O.A. No. 324/95. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the writ petition filed by the present petitioners against the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 72/92, 206/95 and O.A. No. 324/95 was dismissed by this Court. It was also pointed out that the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment of this court arising from O.A. No. 206/95 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24.9.2001. 7. 72/92, 206/95 and O.A. No. 324/95 was dismissed by this Court. It was also pointed out that the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment of this court arising from O.A. No. 206/95 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24.9.2001. 7. Keeping parity with the aforesaid decision, the aforesaid relief was granted to the respondent-applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice a decision of Jammu & Kashmir in Amar Nath & Ors. v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1994, decided on 12.3.97 and urged that facts in Amar Nath's case referred to above, were like facts of the present case and Special Leave Petition against that judgment has been granted by the Supreme Court. 9. The order of Supreme Court granting Special Leave Petition has not been placed before us. However, perusal of the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir goes to show that it was not a case where claim of the petitioner was founded on the premise that he was appointed as skilled grade employee, but was fixed in the pay-scale applicable to semi-skilled employee. In fact, the relief claimed in the case of Amar Nath (supra) was for upgradation of status of the petitioners from semi-skilled to that of skilled employees from the retrospective date and claiming upgradation of pay-scale on that account. It was not a case in which the petitioners had rested him on the ground that he was appointed as skilled employee, but was paid salary of a semi-skilled grade. In that view of the matter, the decision of Amar Nath's case (supra) is of little assistance to the petitioners in this case. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed in liminePetition dismissed. *******