(1) IT is Indeed unfortunate that notwithstanding considerable time having elapsed orders of this Court passed from time to time have not been implemented.

(2) THE dispute in this case arose out of O.A. No. 326/89 which was filed by the petitioner, which is an Association of the Bikaner Division of the Northern Railway. This OA was filed pursuant to the order of restructuring which had been passed by the Railway Board with regard to Group C and D psots. The Tribunal disposed of this OA on 20th Oct, 1992. One of the Issues which arose consideration before the Tribunal was whether the reservation for SC and ST was applicable in the case of upgradation of existing posts.

(3) SPECIAL leave petition was filed by the respondents challenging the said decision, but by order dated 19th Nov. 1998 the order of the Tribunal was upheld.

(4) WHEN no seniority lists were prepared, the present contempt petition was filed. Various orders were passed and In order dated 13th March, 2000 the contention on behalf of the respondents was noticed, namely, that there was difficulty in Implementing different orders passed by the Tribunal because there was some conflict in the orders. Ultimately, on 7th Sept. 2000, this Court recorded the statement of the Solicitor General that an affidavit would be filed Indicating as to how the restructuring has been effected pursuant to the Railway Boards letter of 16th Nov. 1984. An affidavit was filed, but a contention was raised with regard to the applicability of the principle of reservation with regard to upgradation of existing posts. In the order dated 31st Jan. 2001, it was clarified that the principle of reservation does not apply if as a result of reclassification or re-adjustment there is no additional post which is created. It was clarified that if as a result of reclassiflcatlon and re-adjustment having been effected any post Is created then the principle of reservation would be applicable. It was noticed that the present case was restricted only to existing employees who were re-distributed into different scales of pay as a result of this upgradation. The Union of India took time to rework the seniority in the light of the clarification which was so Issued.

(5) ON the next date of hearing, namely, on 25th April, 2001 this Court was Informed by the Solicitor General that the order dated 31st Jan, 2001 had been Implemented and an affidavit to that effect would be filed.

(6) WE are sorry to note that the facts now reveal that on 25th April, 2001 the order of 31st Jan. 2001 had not been Implemented, even partially, and obviously the Solicitor General had been wrongly instructed .The order of 31st Jan. 2001 stated in no uncertain terms that the Union of India will rework the seniority in the light of clarification and a report to this effect was to be submitted within six weeks of the said date. Admittedly, a re- worked seniority in respect of Ministerial cadre only was prepared on 13th Oct. 2001. Therefore, as on 25th April, 2001, there was no compliance of this Courts order of 31st January, 2001 and the statement made to the contrary was obviously incorrect.

(7) THAT is not all. On 18th July, 2001, it was repeated that pursuant to the order of 31st Jan. 2001 the seniority of the persons concerned had been fixed. The seniority list was to be filed. Even on that date, no seniority list had been filed. It is only in the order of 7th Nov. 2001 that reference was made to the letter of 13th Oct. 2001 which indicated that seniority list had been reworked and notified pursuant to the orders of this Court.

(8) WE note that on two different occasions an Incorrect statement was made to the effect that seniority list had been prepared when, it fact, this was not so. Furthermore, a perusal of the OA as well as the order of the Tribunal and of this Court shows that the dispute was with regard to the fixation of seniority of Group C and Group D posts which h