JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi and J.K. Ranka, JJ. Instant petition is directed against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.11.2003. 2. The petitioner who retired from service from the post which he substantively held of Typist later on died on 04.03.2011 & his legal representatives have been brought on record. 3. Brief facts of the case culled out from the material on record are that the petitioner joined service as a Typist & was asked to officiate on the post of Stenographer vide order dated 15.02.1978 and vide later order dated 12.06.1978 he was paid special allowance @ Rs. 30/- for the additional duties being discharged by him of the post of Stenographer and he remained attached to the higher post of Stenographer since 1978-89 on his shoulders and for the period he worked & discharged the work of higher post he was paid special allowance @ Rs. 30/- which is the requirement of Rules. It is not disputed that the post of Stenographer is not a promotional post from Typist and in the ordinary course while the petitioner joined service as a Typist he could not have been considered for promotion on the post of Stenographer on which he was associated & paid allowance @ Rs. 30/- as special allowance. His grievance was that as he worked on the post attached to the higher scale of Stenographer for the period from 1978-1989 on his shoulders, he is entitled to be fixed in the pay scale of Stenographer & the arrears of the post of which duties being discharged by him. 4. It may not be relevant that earlier he filed application u/S 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the learned Labour Court and that came to be challenged by the respondents in a writ petition no.1015/1997 and the order of the learned Labour Court passed on an application u/S 33(c)(2) of the Act,1947 was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2001 and it was held that such an application before the learned Labour Court was not maintainable and even on appeal came to be preferred by the petitioner no. 311/2002 the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal vide order dated 15.04.2002 & granted liberty to the petitioner of filing application before the learned Tribunal at the same it was also observed that it may not come in his way and the learned Tribunal may independently examine & decide in accordance with law. 5. The learned Tribunal after the matter being heard arrived to a conclusion that it is not a promotional post in hierarchy and there is no such rule which postulates for grant of higher pay of the post held by him of Stenographer and under the scheme of Rules if an incumbent officiates on the higher post certainly he is entitled to special allowance which was indisputably paid to the petitioner and the Ld. Tribunal arrived to a conclusion that his grievance for fixation in the pay-scale of the post of Stenographer 425-640 may not be admissible in law and repelled his contention while rejecting his Original Application under order impugned dated 21.11.2003 which is subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that as he discharged duties of the higher post of Stenographer he is entitled for fixation in the pay-scale and also the arrears for the period he had discharged duties and there is no rule which comes as an impediment but as general principles of law makes him entitled for fixation prayed for and this is an apparent error which the learned Tribunal committed while passing order impugned. 7. Indisputably the petitioner joined service as a Typist and if he was asked on some occasion to officiate on the post of Stenographer which is admittedly not in the channel of promotion and can be aptly considered as ex-cadre post and no benefit of pay fixation is otherwise admissible in respect of working on the ex-cadre post as per R.1320 of Railway Establishment Rules Volume-2 and apart from it under the scheme of Rules if the incumbent cannot be considered eligible for the post held by him of which duties being discharged but paid special pay/allowance for officiating on the post which indisputably was paid to him we do not find any justification in the contention for fixation of the pay scale of the higher post which he held from 1974-89 and the learned Tribunal has considered in detail while passing order impugned. We have gone through the order of the learned Tribunal & also considered the submissions and find no justification to interfere in the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition is devoid of merit & accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.