(1) THE Petitioiner is an employee in the Ministry of External Affairs of the onion government and challenge in this writ petition is to the seniority list published on 1.8.77 under the cover of memorandum dated 18/10/1977. The petitioner alleges that the said list does not take into account the length of service and has not been properly drawn up. He also asked for grant of consequential benefits on the basis of assignment of proper seniority. During the pendency of this writ petition a similar dispute directed against the seniority list referred to above as also certain other aspects was raised in writ petition No. 565/74 before the Delhi High court and with the coming into force of the Central Administrative tribunal Act, the writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative tribunal, Delhi bench in T.A. No. 129/85. By judgment dated 21.11.86 the Delhi bench of the Tribunal has set aside the impugned seniority list and has directed that it should be re-drawn upon the basis of the seniority based upon total length of service including continuous officiation irrespective of whether the same was ad hoc or temporary. Counsel appearing for the appellant says that the decision was accepted and has also been implemented, in that view of the matter no direction in the writ petition for quashing of the seniority list or for re-drawing of the seniority list is necessary to be given. We are, however, asked to give a direction that upon the refixation of seniority in accordance with the direction of the Tribunal referred to above, consequential benefit should be available to the appellant. Counsel appearing for the respondents suggests that in calling upon the Union of India to give effect regarding conferment of consequential benefits, we should indicate that if as a result of the preparation of the seniority list in accordance with the decision and the review of the promotions which would follow as a consequence, promotees in the higher grades are likely to be reverted, such officers may not be reverted and should continue in the higher posts by creating supernumary posts to the extent as may be necessary. Such a direction appears to have been given by this court in a similar situation in NARINDER CHADHA & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1986 (1) SCR 211. We suggest to government that while complying with the direction for extending the consequential benefits to the appellant upon re-drawing of the seniority list, it should keep this principle in view and give effect to our order. In the case of the petitioner before us who has now retired notional promotion may be granted so that the benefit which would accrue may be worked out. These consequential benefits should be worked out within six months from today. The writ petition is disposed of. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.