Zaki Ullah Khan, J.:— The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 4.6.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short 'the Tribunal'), in so far as, it has denied the petitioner, the arrears of the Grade of Rs. 1400-2300 to which the petitioner was held entitled with effect from 7.11.1990. 2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Goods Guard on 4.11.1980 in North Eastern Railway. Thereafter on his request, he was transferred in 1986 to Allahabad Division of Northern Railway. During periodical Medical Examination, the petitioner was medically decategorized for holding the post of Goods Guard. He was given an alternative job as Inquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk in the Grade of Rs. 1200-2040/- with effect from 7.11.1990. At the time of medical decategorization, the petitioner was drawing pay of Rs. 2040/- at the maximum of the scale of Rs. 1200-2040. 3. Relying upon the Circular of the Railway Board dated 2.9.1977 and Para 1309 (iv) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (I.R.E.M.), the petitioner made a Representation dated 15.11.1990 stating that as the petitioner was working in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040, the equated scale should have been computed by adding 30% of pay in lieu of the running allowance to the minimum and maximum of the scale and, thus, the petitioner ought to have been given the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. By the order dated 4.2.1991, the said Representation of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner thereupon again made Representations for reconsideration of his case pointing out the cases of the other colleagues who were similarly decategorized and had been absorbed in the alternative job, having equated scale after adding 30% of pay. However, the case of the petitioner was not reconsidered. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed Original Application before the Tribunal being Original Application No. 499 of 1995. 5. The Tribunal, by the Order dated 4th June, 1997, allowed the said Original Application filed by the petitioner and quashed the said Order dated 4th February, 1991. The Tribunal further directed that the petitioner would be allowed absorption in the Grade of ? 1400-2300, from the date of absroption on the alternative post, i.e., 7.11.1990. However, the Tribunal further observed that the petitioner would not be entitled for payment of any arrears. 6. The Tribunal further directed that the petitioner would be allowed absorption in the Grade of ? 1400-2300, from the date of absroption on the alternative post, i.e., 7.11.1990. However, the Tribunal further observed that the petitioner would not be entitled for payment of any arrears. 6. The petitioner has thereupon filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. 7. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in the present writ petition. 8. We have heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 9. It is submitted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal having accepted the entitlement of the petitioner to the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 with effect from 7.11.1990, ought to have granted arrears also while allowing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 10. We have considered the submission made by Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and we find ourselves unable to accept the same. 11. The Tribunal in its Order dated 4th June, 1997 has taken note on the fact that the petitioner had already been promoted in the Higher Grade of Rs. 1400-2300 with effect from 13.12.1991. 12. It is evident that the Tribunal having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submissions made before it, in regard to the question under consideration, did not consider it appropriate to grant arrears of the Grade in question to the petitioner. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the Order of the Tribunal in this regard. 13. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. _____________