(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in an application for contempt by issuing direction which tantamounts to the review of its earlier decision?

(3) THE dispute relates to the principles to be followed for determination of seniority on being promoted to the post of U.D.C. from that of L.D.C.

(4) ON an application being filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") which was registered as O.A. No. 392/93, the Tribunal disposed of the matter by its order dated 17.1.1995 following the decision in the case of Mohinder Kumar and Ashok Mehta [T.A. No. 556/1986 and O.A. 147/88]. That decision of the Tribunal was made on 17.1.1995 and it transpires that there was an earlier decision in the case of N. Ravindran which arose out of a judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and which had not been placed before the Tribunal. On a contempt application being filed before the Tribunal alleging that the decision dated 17.1.1995 has not been followed, the Tribunal examines the decision in Ravindrans case, reviews its earlier order