JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.809 of 1994 challenging the order dated 29.11.2000. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as a Time Scale Sorting Assistant in Railway Mail Service ‘N’ Division on 21.10.1959. According to the petitioner he was due to be promoted to the Lower Selection Grade (LSG) with effect from 1.6.1974 under 20 % quota, but the authorities reckoned authority amongst Time Scale Sorting Assistants in the Division on the basis of the date of confirmation of their services irrespective of their date of entry and brought out an erroneous list of offi¬cials deemed and entitled to LSG cadre carrying higher pay of the said cadre with effect from 1.6.1974 by order dated 14.11.1974. 3. The petitioner kept quiet for a years and thereafter filed the above mentioned O.A. in the year 1994 with the follow¬ing relief : “The respondents authorities be directed to pay the arrear dues of the applicant consequent upon his promotion to the LSG cadre from the year 1974 as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and Supreme Court at par with Sri Hrudananda Kumar striking down their orders under Annexures-3, 4 and 5 dated 13.3.1986, 15.6.1993 and 6.5.1994 respectively.” 4. The allegation made in the O.A. are clear from the contents of paragraphs C, D and E thereof which are quoted as under : “C. That Sri Hrudananda Kumar, Time Scale Sorting Assistant at Serial No.40 and under Annexure-1 was made to supersede the Applicant for which he made several representations unlike some of whom bringing about the cause of action in the High Court of Orissa and obtained directions for preparation of a fresh Gradation list on the principles laid down in 1974(2) SLR-884 and to vest all consequential benefits in the Applicant while allow¬ing the writ application and quashing the gradation list forming the basis of the list prepared under Annexure-1. D. That in case of Paramananda Sahoo similarly situated as the Applicant and directed conferment of full financial benefits upon approval of his LSG Cadre in the year 1974 and payment of arrears of his pay and allowances therefrom in compliance of same orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa with a word of caution that they should be allowed pay and allowances at par with offi¬cials immediately junior to them. E. That resolving several such anomalies and following several guidelines of the Respondents No.1 and 2 a revised grada¬tion list was drawn up on 15.12.81 placing the Applicant at serial 102 allowing stepping up of his pay at par with Sri R. C. Sethi at Serial 105 permitting the Applicant to go over some of his juniors except that at serial 40 of Annexure I Sri Hrudananda Kumar who is placed at serial 61, the relevant portion of grada¬tion list is annexed as Annexure-2.” 5. In the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, the opposite parties had stated that the petitioner Sri N. C.Mishra joined as Stg. Asst. (Time Scale) in RMS and Division, Cuttack on 21.10.1959 and was confirmed on 1.3.1962. He was approved for promotion to LSG cadre under 2/3rd quota of vacancies for the year 1982 vide PMG Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar Memo No.ST/26-2/81, dated 4.10.1982 and posted to work in a non-functional LSG posts under RO ‘N’ Division, Puri with effect from 23.11.1982 vide SSRM and Division, Cuttack Memo No.B4-2/Ch. X dated 15.10.1982 in the scale of pay Rs.425/155.560-EB-640. Prior to this the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs.260/- Rs.480/- and he was getting a basic pay of Rs.468/- in the time scale Stg. Asst. cadre and after his promotion to LSG Stg. Asst. cadre his pay was fixed to Rs.485/-. Subsequently the case of stepping up of his pay to pro¬vide at par with one Sri R. C. Sethi who was a S.C. candidate was considered vide SSRM and Division, Cuttack Memo No.B4-I/Ch. V. dated 13.10.86 in pursuance of LSG gradation list issued vide PMG, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar letter No.ST/30-2/84 dated 15.12.1984. Since according to the audit report the stepping up of pay of the petitioner was irregular, therefore, the same was withdrawn. V. dated 13.10.86 in pursuance of LSG gradation list issued vide PMG, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar letter No.ST/30-2/84 dated 15.12.1984. Since according to the audit report the stepping up of pay of the petitioner was irregular, therefore, the same was withdrawn. However, this was not in the subject matter of the O.A. The petitioner was approved for promotion to LSG cadre he was posted in non-functional LSG post with effect from 23.11.1982. 6. With regard the allegations of the petitioner in respect of promotion of other candidates, namely, Hrudananda Kumar and R. C. Sethi who were allegedly junior to the petitioner, it was clearly stated in the counter affidavit that they belonged to Scheduled Caste community and as such they were given promotion in their quota prior to the promotion of the petitioner who belonged to general category. 7. The other person, namely, Paramananda Sahoo who was given promotion prior to the petitioner was senior to him and his date of entry in the service was 30.10.1958 and he belonged to regular LSG supervisory post which was much before the enforcement of providing 20% LSG quota and therefore the case of the petitioner was not similar to the case of Paramananda Sahoo who was much senior to him on the basis of the respective dates of appointment of the petitioner as well as Paramananda Sahoo for the purpose reckoning seniority. 8. The Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid O.A. on merits as well as on the ground that the application was barred by limita¬tion provided in the Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985 and also that since the cause of action arose in the year 1974, i.e., for not having been promoted to LSG cadre in that year, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain and hear this application under Section 21(2) of the Act which lays down that where grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years imme¬diately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under the said Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates. Since the Central Administrative Tribunal begun functioning from 1.11.1985 onwards, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Since the Central Administrative Tribunal begun functioning from 1.11.1985 onwards, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer : “quashing the order of the CAT under Annexure-1 and directing the opposite party to grant pre and post retrial financial benefits to the petitioner by providing notional promotion to the LSG cadre from 1974.” 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and found that the petitioner could not have claimed parity with the persons who belonged to SC category. The discrimination can be claimed only by a person if he has been dealt with differently to the similarly situated persons. Since in this case Sri Hrudananda Kumar as well as R.C. Sethi both belonged to SC and formed different class parity could not have been claimed by the petitioner with them. 10. In respect of other person who belongs to general category, namely, Paramananda Sahoo, it is not disputed that he was much senior to the petitioner. His date of appointment was 30.10.1958, whereas the date of appointment of the petitioner was 21.9.1959. As such if Paramananda Sahoo has been given promotion prior to the petitioner there cannot be any illegality or irregu¬larity in such promotion. 11. In view what has been discussed above, we see no good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the above, the writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.