ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The appellant was compulsorily retired from service by an order dated August 1, 1986. He was due to retire on November 30, 1989. He questioned the order of compulsory retirement by filing an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. {Sardul Singh v. Delhi Administration, (1991) 15 ATC 520 (ND)} The Tribunal by its order dated October 5, 1990 came to the conclusion that the appropriate authority has not followed the procedure and the guidelines and, therefore, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was legally unsustainable. This becomes clear on a reading of paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Tribunals order. If the Tribunal had rested there the appellant would have no cause for complaint. But the Tribunal then proceeded to direct as under:

"The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for retention in service in the lower post of Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. August 1, 1986. In case they come to the conclusion that he could be retained in the next lower post of Sub-Inspector of Police, they shall pass an order to the effect that he was deemed to be reverted from the post of Inspector to that