IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.747 of 2009. 1.The Union Of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur. 2.The General Manager (Personnel) East Central Railway, Hazipur. 3.Te Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railways, Hazipur 4.The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur. 5.The Divisional Railway Manager(Personnel), East Central Railway, Danapur. 6.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur. Petitioners. Versus 1.Viveka Nand Ojha son of Shri Lallanjee Ojha, Traveling Ticket Examiner, East Central Railway, Rajendra Nagar, Patna, Resident of 46/C Surya Sadan, S.K.Vihar Colony, Beur, Police Station Anisabad, District Patna. 2.Mr.Dinu Prasad son of late Nand Lal Prasad at present posted as Traveling Ticket Examiner, East Central Railway, Jhajha. 3.Mr.R.B.Gupta, so of late Ram Lakhan Gupta, resident of North Mandiri, P.S.Budha Colony District Patna. 4.Mr.A.K.Tripathy, son of Gupteshwar Tripathi, working as T.T.E, East Central Railway, Arrah. 5.Mohammad M.A.Sidhique son of Mohammad Suleman, resident of Jamaluddin Chak, P.O. Khagaul, District Patna. 6.Arun Kumar Singh son of Late Jagdish Singh, posted as T.T.E., East Central Railway, Arrah. 7.Pujan Singh son of Late Shivdhari Singh resident of Qr.No. 241/CD, New Colony, Khagaul, Patna. 8.Aftab Alam son of Late Rahamatullah, Resident of Qr.No. 154/AB New Colony, Khagaul, District Patna. 9.Mohammad Dilshad Ansari son of A.Quddoos, resident of Bari Khagaul, District Patna. 10.S.B.Prasad son of Late G.Rawat, Resident of Qr.No. 261/A,Railway Colony, Lakhisarai. …Respondents. For the Petitioners : Mr. Arbind Ujjawal, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr.M.P.Dixit, Adv. Mr.S.K.Chaudhary, Adv. 5. 12.10.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners who are Union of India and its Officials are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10th March 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A.No. 174 of 2007 on the ground that the Tribunal’s judgment and views are contrary to that of the Supreme Court in a later judgment reported in (2008)9 SCC 242, Union of India Vs. 2 Pushpa Rani. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon an earlier Supreme Court Judgment, but a perusal of the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani (supra) clearly shows that the Apex Court has considered the earlier judgment and come to a different view and has affirmed the provisions for reservation under the Railway Board letter dated 9th February 2003 whereby a decision was taken to upgrade certain Grade “C” & Grade “D” posts by way of restructuring of Cadre with effect from 1st November 2003. Since the same very Railway Board’s letter has been construed by the learned Tribunal differently and the impugned order is clearly in conflict with the latest view of the Supreme Court, the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside and the controversy between the parties is disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani (supra). The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)