ORDER

The original applicant before the Tribunal is the appellant herein. The applicant filed an original application before the Tribunal questioning the decision of the Railway Administration of the Union of India to invoke the 40-Point Roster on the basis of vacancies arising and not on the basis of cadre strength of promotion. It is not in dispute that keeping in view a large number of decisions rendered by different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal, inter alia, held that reservation cannot be allowed to be implemented at the promotional level and further the Roster Point has to be considered having regard to the cadre strength and not of the vacancies. It was directed.

"Following the precedents, we hold:

(a) that the principle of reservation operates on the cadre strength;

(b) that seniority vis-a-vis reserved and unreserved categories of employees in the lower category will be reflected in the promoted category also notwithstanding the earlier promotion obtained on the basis of reservation.

Applying these principles, respondents-Railways will work out the reliefs. We are issuing the direction, as the apex Court thought that the judgments in force should be implemented. (interim orders in C.A. 2017/78)."

2. The Union of India preferred a special leave petition thereagainst which was marked as SLP (C) No. 10691/1995, and by an order dated 31st (sic) August, 1996, the said petition was dismissed stating:

"Delay condoned.

These matters are fully covered by the decision of this Court in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 1995(2) SCC 745 and Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1189. The Special Leave Petitions are therefore dismissed."

3. The appellant herein thereafter filed contempt petition before the Tribunal as its earlier order dated 6th September, 1994, had not been implemented within the period specified therein. The Tribunal, however, having regard to the observations made by this Court in its order dated 30th August 1996, observed that as both in the case of Sabharwal (supra) as also in Ajit Singh-I (supra), the decision was directed to be applied with prospective effect the appellants were not entitled to any relief stating:

"Special Leave Petitions were not dismissed without reasons. Apex Court has given reason for dismissing the SLPs. When such reason is given, the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution which provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the Courts within the territory of India."

4. The Tribunal, purporting to apply the principles laid down in the afore-mentioned cases, held that the respondents herein cannot be said to have disobeyed its directions and committed contempt.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal misread and misapplied the decisions of this Court holding that the entire Judgment rendered by this Court in Sabharwal and Ajit Singh-I had been given retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct.

6. In R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [1995 (2) SCC 745] two contentions were raised before this Court which are:

"(1) The object of reservation is to provide adequate representation to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes and Backward Classes in services and as such any mechanism provided to achieve that end must have nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The precise argument is that for working out the percentage of reservation the promotees/appointees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes whether appointed against the general category posts or against the reserve posts are to be counted. In other words if more than 14% of the Scheduled Caste candidates are appointed/promoted in a cadre on their own merit/seniority by competing with the general category candidates then the purpose of reservation in the said cadre having been achieved, the Governm