ORDER

1. The order under appeal was passed on 11.1.1998 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi. It granted to the respondents the same relief that was granted to the petitioners by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, H.L. Anand, J., in writ petitions CWPs Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978. Those reliefs were that the respondents "would be deemed to have continued in service and would be treated as such, but without prejudice to such action as the authorities may be advised to take in relation to the matter in accordance with law."

2. The respondents were temporary constables in the service of the Delhi Administration. They were appointed in 1963, 1964 and 1966. In 1967 there was a strike in which the respondents participated. By reason thereof, their services were terminated by the appellants on 16.3.1967.

3. Writ petitions had been filed in 1978 in the Delhi High Court by persons similarly placed. Those writ petitions were allowed by H.L. Anand, J. on 18.7.1983 and he gave them the reliefs aforementioned.

4. Obviously relying upon the judgment delivered by H.L. Anand, J., the respondents filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court in 1983 and 1985. Those writ petitions stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal had given to the respondents the same relief that had been given by H.L. Anand, J. In other words, they were reinstated in service and became entitled to back wages from 1967 to 1983/1985. In the order of the Tribunal its earlier judgment dated 26.11.1987 was referred to, where writ petitions which had been transferred to the Tribunal were allowed and the same relief was given. In those matters the appellants had contended that no reliefs should be granted because the writ petitioners had not chosen to move the court expeditiously and the Tribunal held that they could not be denied the reliefs only because of delay and laches. That order of the Tribunal was carried to this Court and this Court confirmed it with a small modification. It is because of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 4.5.1990 in CAs Nos. 3376-82 of 1988, apparently, that these appeals were directed to be placed before a Bench comprising three Judges. That is how the appeals are before us.

5. In the order of this Court dated 4.5.1990 it is stated that the order of the Tribunal dated 26.11.1987 was confirmed considering the facts and circumstances as well as the judgment rendered by H.L. Anand, J. The judgment rendered by H.L. Anand, J. was in writ petitions which had been filed in 1978 and not in 1983 and 1985 as here. What the facts and circumstances were that moved this Court on 4.5.1990 are not apparent from that order except that this might be a reference to a statement made by the then Home Minister in Parliament pursuant thereto that prosecutions against the dismissed constables were withdrawn.

6. The present respondents were dismissed from service in March 1967. Their writ petitions were filed 16/18 years thereafter. There is no explanation available on the record as to why such delay and laches can be available nor does the order of the Tribunal under challenge give any indication. We do not find in the judgment of this Court dated 4.5.1990 any discussion on delay and laches which may help us in the present case.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court the respondents have been paid the arrears of salary and salary up to date and except one who died they remain in service.

8. We do not think that there was any case made out to condone the delay and laches of 16/18 years. In any event and even assuming that such a case was made out, it would have been proper only to direct reinstatement without back wges or with limited back wages. In these circumstances, we cannot treat ourselves as bound by the order dated 4.5.1990 and must disapprove of what was held therein. At the same time, it would now be inequitable to require the resp