JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — These writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. Nos. 618 and 627 of 1995 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for equal pay with that of Opposite party No.3. 2. Originally the Institute of Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition was jointly sponsored by the Government of India and Government of Orissa in the name of Food Crafts Institute in 1973. But in course of time, the Government of India has taken over its management and responsibility for financing it and as such at National level a policy decision was taken under the name and style “Institute of Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition” (hereinafter referred to as “Institute”). In the year 1984, Recruitment Rules have been framed with effect from 1.1.1984. Central scale of pay for var¬ious category of posts was made applicable on and from 1.1.1984. The Evaluation Committee set up by the Institute was authorised to consider the individual cases to bring them into the revised scale as per the guidelines of the Finance Department. But howev¬er, the petitioners name were not sponsored with effect from 1.1.1984. But the opposite party No.3 was held to be entitled to the new scale of pay on and from 1.1.1984. The petitioners along with others filed a case before this Court claiming scale of pay on par with opposite party No.3 in OJC No.591 of 1987. During the pendency of the previous writ petition, the opposite party No.1 took an administrative decision whereby the petitioners and others who were found eligible have been allowed to draw the new scale of pay. This Court referring to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No.2 held as follows :- OJC Nos.590 and 591 of 1987 “5. 6.8.91 The petitioners were Lecturers in the Institute of Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition, when they approached this Court in 1987. They wanted fixation of their pay in the central pay scale. This relief has since been given as would appear from the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the opp.parties today. By the resolution enclosed along with the affidavit, the petitioners have been allowed the Central scale of pay after relaxing the essential qualification with effect from 1.1.85 as it is from that date that the State Government scale of pay became higher. By the resolution enclosed along with the affidavit, the petitioners have been allowed the Central scale of pay after relaxing the essential qualification with effect from 1.1.85 as it is from that date that the State Government scale of pay became higher. In the additional affidavit it has been also stated that the petitioners have been drawing their pay in the central scale and they have also received their arrear dues. In view of these, the prayer of the petitioners has been acceded to and the present applications have, therefore, become infructuous, and are closed.” 3. The opposite party No.3 undisputedly is drawing higher emoluments even though the scale of pay is one and similar with that of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners in order to avoid such anomaly filed an application before the learned Cen¬tral Administrative Tribunal claiming at least the same emolu¬ments with opposite party No.3. But the Tribunal having rejected their claim, they filed this case. 4. From the Gradation List filed by opposite party Nos.1 and 2, it seems both the petitioners ranked senior to opposite party No.3. Petitioner Tomy Thomas has joined service some times in 1979 whereas petitioner Sayed Mohammed Sidique and opposite party No.3, C.K. Mohapatra joined on the same day i.e. on 11.3.1983. In the Gradation List both the petitioners namely, Tomy Thomas and Sayed Mohammed Sidique were shown senior to opposite party No.3, Sri C.K. Mohapatra. But while the Evaluation Committee took up their individual cases into consideration, the petitioners Tomy Thomas and sayed Mohammed Sidique were found not suitable at that time. Therefore, they were not allowed to draw the Central scale of pay with effect from 1.1.1984 whereas opposite party No.3, C.K. Mohapatra having Graduate Degree was al¬lowed to draw central scale on and with effect from 1.1.1984. On being asked to Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as to what are the criterion for giving higher scale of pay, he produced the guidelines fixed by the Tourism Department, Central Government which is reproduced herein below :- Qualifications N.A. For Cockery/Bakery and confectionery 20-28 Restaurant and Counter-Service/Hotel Reception and Book Keeping : 3 years Diplo¬ma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology (at least 2nd Division) or equivalent. For Housekeeping : As above or M.Sc. with Home Management Major and Cloth and Textile Minor. Experience : At least one year’s experience in the relevant field. For Housekeeping : As above or M.Sc. with Home Management Major and Cloth and Textile Minor. Experience : At least one year’s experience in the relevant field. Desirable : Post Diploma in Specialised Hotel Management. A Craft Certificate in the relevant field 5. If it is examined in the light of the above guidelines issued by the Tourism Department, Government of India, neither the petitioners nor the opposite party No.3 had possessed the requisite qualification at the time when opposite party No.3’s case was considered by the Evaluation Committee. But be that as it may, since the opposite party No.3 was possessing Graduation Degree, therefore, they relaxed the other qualification and permitted him to draw the higher scale. Some time thereafter it appears the Ministry of Parliament Affairs and Tourism has fur¬ther relaxed the guidelines in their Letter No.10 (6)/84-HMC, dated 21st March, 1986. The relevant portion of the guidelines is quoted herein below :- “xxx As it has been decided, in principle, that the scales of the employees of the Institutes would not perpetually be linked with the State scales, the question of adjusting such cases has been considered in depth and it has been decided that such employees as had not been allowed to come over to the Cen¬tral pay scales for lack of qualifications may be allowed to open for the Central scales provided the revised State scales are higher after relaxation of the essential qualifications and the pay of such employees will be fixed in the Central pay scales at a stage so that there is no loss/gain to them in the process. In cases where the particular stage in the pay scale in the Central scale does not readily fit in, personal pay observable in future increments may be allowed. xxx” 6. By taking into consideration the above relaxation, the Evaluation Committee subsequently permitted the petitioners to draw the Central scale of pay with effect from 1.1.1985 but with the condition that unless they possessed the necessary qualifica¬tion within one year from the date of allowing them to draw the higher scale, they shall not be allowed to draw their annual increment. It seems, all of them, namely, the petitioners and the opposite party No.3 qualified themselves subsequently as per the guidelines. 7. Now it has to be decided whether the petitioners can claim the salary in par with opposite party No.3. It seems, all of them, namely, the petitioners and the opposite party No.3 qualified themselves subsequently as per the guidelines. 7. Now it has to be decided whether the petitioners can claim the salary in par with opposite party No.3. As a matter of fact, the opposite party No.3 was given higher emoluments with effect from 1.1.1984. By the time the petitioners were permitted to draw the scale of pay evidently the opposite party No.3 was receiving higher emoluments. Even though all of them are in one grade, but their scale being different when they were permitted to avail Central scale of pay, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the same scale as that of opposite party No.3. Since the petitioners had been given higher scale of pay at a later date, therefore, they cannot claim the same salary which was permitted to opposite party No.3 with effect from 1.1.1984. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. But however, from the present Grada¬tion list also we found the position of the petitioners is above the opposite party No.3. In order to avoid such anomaly, rancor, ill-feeling brow beating among the parties and jealousy, we find it appropriate to direct opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to equalise their salary from the date of the judgment. No arrear can be allowed to the petitioners. 8. With the above direction, the writ applications are disposed of. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Applications disposed of.