JUDGMENT

R.M. SAHAI, J.—Railway employees working in Loco Running Staff, of different zones numbering approximately 800, were dismissed under Rule 14(ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for their participation in Loco Running Staff Association strike in January 1981. In each of these cases the disciplinary authority held that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry. Since then most of the employees have been pursuing their remedy by way of appeals, revisions, writ petitions and claim petitions. They have also been making effort politically to get themselves reinstated. The legal battle has been a long one. Some of it is noticed in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (referred as CAT), Hyderabad. Other orders impugned are passed by CAT, Jodhpur and CAT, Chandigarh. Appeal Nos. 4681-82 of 1992 and 4651-4680 of 1992 arise out of the order passed by the CAT, Hyderabad. Earlier the employees challenged their dismissal by way of writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Some of these petitions were allowed as the appellate authority had passed non-speaking orders. Others were dismissed. Against the orders dismissing the writ petitions the employees filed a review petition which was allowed in view of decision of this Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 and a direction was given to the appellate authority to decide the appeals afresh in light of observations made by this Court in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 252 and Ram Chander v. Union of India {(1986) 3 SCC 103. The appellate authority once again maintained the order of dismissal. It has been set aside by the CAT both for failure to apply mind and absence of any material justifying dismissal. Following directions were issued:

"In the result, we set aside the orders of the appellate authorities/reviewing authorities rejecting the appeals/review petition of the applicants and the orders of the disciplinary authorities dismissing the applicants from service. In O.A. Nos. 24/86, 369/86, 232/87, 402/88, 403/88, 694/88, 808/88, 809/88, 810/88, 811/88, 812/88, 865/88, 868/88, 869/88, 870/88, 871/88, 883/88, 44/89, 46/89, 92/89, 93/89, 103/89, 231/89, 298/89, 299/89 and 300/89, we direct the appellate authority to conduct an inquiry either himself or through an inquiring authority appointed by it in accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. If an enquiry is not possible at all, the applicants will be entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. In O.A. Nos. 233/87, 329/87, 767/87, 43/89 and 45/89 it is represented that the applicants have since retired. The question of holding an inquiry in their cases does not, therefore, arise. The orders of the disciplinary authority/appellate authority in these cases are set aside as has been done by the Gauhati Bench in O.A. No. 408/86 (Gokul Ch. Barua v. Union of India, (1989) 9 ATC 579 (Guw)). The applicants therein will be entitled to receive the salary for the period from the date of dismissal to the date of their attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter to pension as if they had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation."

2. Special leave petitions have been filed against the order of CAT, Jodhpur. The employees working in Loco Running Sheds of Jodhpur had challenged their order of dismissal by way of appeals. As the appeals were not decided within reasonable time they filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court which were transferred to this Court on an application made by the Union of India. All these petitions were disposed of along with the decision in Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398. In view of the observation made in that decision the employees whose appeal had been rejected during pendency of the writ petition filed revision before the revising authority which was dismissed. Against the order dismissing their revision they filed the claim petition which was dec