ORDER

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, made on April 16, 1996 in O.A. No. 466/94.

3. The appellant was initially suspended and charge-sheet was laid against him on April 29, 1974. His order of dismissal was ultimately set aside and thereafter he was reinstated into the service by the Tribunal s order dated March 13, 1992 in O.A. No. 261/91. It would appear that while setting aside the order of dismissal the Tribunal had passed the order that the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits which he could have earned had he been in service. Since in spite of his representations, he was not given consequential benefits, he filed contempt application on December 11, 1992, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on July 29, 1993. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present O.A. for a direction to implement the order dated March 13, 1992. The Tribunal dismissed the same by the impugned order dated April 16, 1996 on the ground that the application of the appellant was barred by limitation. Thus this appeal by s