IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6374 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6375 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6376 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6377 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6535 OF 2004 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ Mr.D.A.Dube for the petitioners. Mr.Ramesh Ramamurthy for respondent nos.1 to 8. CORAM: V.G.PALSHIKAR & CORAM: V.G.PALSHIKAR & CORAM: V.G.PALSHIKAR & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 DATED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 DATED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2005. P.C.: . By all these petitions the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay bench is challenged. The challenge basically is that the Bombay bench of the tribunal has solely relied on the decision of 25th August, 2000 given by the Madras bench of the tribunal taking a particular view. Since this position was acceded to by the counsel of Union of India nothing has been observed by the bench. 2. The order of tribunal, Madras bench dated 25.8.2000 is set aside by the Madras High Court. It is alleged that the matter is now pending in the Supreme Court. In any case because the order passed by the tribunal, Bombay bench is based solely on the decision given by the Madras bench of the tribunal on 25.8.2000 and the matters are not decided on the merits, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside and the matters are remitted to Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay for deciding as per law. Interim order was operative in these cases. It will continue to operate for eight more weeks during which the original applicants before the tribunal should apply for continuance of the interlocutory order. All contentions raised before the tribunal shall remain open for both the parties. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. ...