JUDGMENT :

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vishal P. Shirke, learned counsel representing the Petitioners and Mr. Advait Sethna, learned Counsel representing the Respondents – Union of India and perused the records available before us on these petitions.

2. Since all the three petitions raise common question of facts and law, the same are being decided by the common judgment which follows :

CHALLENGE :

3. By instituting these petitions, the Petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 2nd January 2017 passed by the Mumbai Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) whereby the Original Applications filed by the Petitioners challenging their reversion from the post of Chargeman (Technical) have been dismissed.

FACTS IN BRIEF :

4. Since the facts as narrated and culled out from the pleadings available on record are similar in these petitions, Writ Petition No.801 of 2017 shall be treated to be the leading Writ Petition and facts of the said case shall be narrated for convenience.

5. All the Petitioners are working in different Ordnanc