The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of the limitation prescribed under the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, and the Tribunal's obligation to consider and dismiss the review application on the ground of limitation.

Shiva Kirti Singhm Shivaji Pandey and J JJ.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India through the General Manager, North East Railways against the judgment and order dated 1st November 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Review Application Case No. 45 of 2002 (arising out of O.A.No. 259 of 1998) and another analogous Review Application No. 86 of 2000 (arising out of O.A.No. 259 of 1998). By the impugned order, contained in Anmnexure-1, the Tribunal has dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner and also the review Application No. 86 of 2000 filed by some of the aggrieved railway employees.

3. This writ petition primarily raises an important issue of law as to the interpretation and effect of Rules 302 and 303 of the Railway Establishment Manual regulating seniority of non-gazetted Railway servants. Some ancillary issues of law have been raised on behalf of private respondents to question the maintainability of the application. The first issue is that the review application was filed beyond time prescribed by Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the #30; Rules?) and the other issue is that a writ petition preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 23rd October 2000 bearing C.W.J.C.No. 4105 of 2002 was dismissed by this Court on 8th May 2002 along with one review petition bearing No. 12 of 2002 and hence, the Tribunal has rightly held that it has no scope to go into the merits of the matter.

4. The order dated 23rd October 2000 whereby O.A.No. 259 of 1998 preferred by the respondents before the Tribunal was allowed is Annexure-2 and it discloses that the applicant/respondent herein joined as Fireman(A) on different dates between March 1989 to January 1993. The letter of appointment of one of the applicants dated 24 th February 1998 which is Annexured-7 is said to be similar to the appointment letters of other applicants. Clause 2 & 3 of the appointment letter is to the effect that appointment is only as an apprentice/trainee (temporary appointee), and the trainee will be appointed to the working post after successful completion of training and the temporary service period will commence from the date of such appointment. As per Clause 3, the 4 period of training as an apprentice/trainee will be of 2 years and only on successful completion of training, the temporary appointee will be offered temporary appointment in a regular post in the Railways in the scale of Rs.950-1,500/-. Para-1 of the appointment letter shows that the initial temporary appointment was in the post of trainee/apprentice Fireman(A) at stipend of Rs.900-20-920/- per month in the scale of Rs.950-1,500/- plus usual dearness allowance during the training period.

5. Since the respondents/applicants passed the training and joined the post of Fireman(A), they claimed before the Tribunal that their seniority should be fixed in the cadre of Fireman(A)/Diesel Assistant (an equivalent post) on the basis of period of training as trainee Fireman. Such claim for counting their period of apprenticeship towards regular service for the purpose of seniority was allowed by the Tribunal on 23rd October 2000 by following the views expressed in the order of Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal dated 18th December 1996 passed in O.A.No. 188 of 1991 and also on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M.P. Pradhan V. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 891.

6. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 23 rd October, 2000 the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing C.W.J.C.No. 5773 of 2001. The same was dismissed summarily by order dated 2nd May 2001(Annexure-4). From Annexure-4 it appears that this Court did not go into the merits of the matter and dismissed the writ petition by appreciating that the Tribunal was adopting a consistent approach by following the