1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Writ Petition No.6593 of 2002 . The Union of India & Others .. Petitioners v/s. Smt. Jayalaxmi ..Respondent Mr.G.Hariharan with Mr.D.A.Dubey i/b. Pankaj Kapoor for the petitioners. None for the respondent CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 30th November, 2009 P.C. : 1. This petition impugns the judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench on 27.10.1997 passed in O.A. Nos.501, 502 and 520 of 1997. A review petition was also filed against the said order alongwith an application for condonation of delay. By an order dated 9.2.2001, the common judgment dated 27.10.1997 came to be confirmed. 2 2. The common judgment rendered by the tribunal and impugned in this petition is based on the judgement rendered by the Apex Court on 4.11.1997 in Civil Appeal No.4201 of 1995. The original applicants were the legal representatives of the retired employees under the Ministry of Defence and what remained by way of relief was regarding the determination of pensionary benefits. The Tribunal directed the present petitioner to re-classify the applicants in O.A.No.502 of 1997 and 520 of 1997 as well as the deceased husband of the applicant in O.A.No.501 of 1997, as Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1947 and to pay them, all the arrears as per the directions of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4201 of 1995. The petitioners were further directed to reveiw the cases of promotion, refixation of pay, seniority and reclassification of pension and gratuity in accordance with earlier order dated 8.6.1994. Such orders were challenged before this Court and one of them being Writ Petition No.9448 of 2003, filed by the Union of India. 3. We are informed that the respondent could not be served till now as her present address is not known and she is the widow of the UDC who had retired from service. Though the petitioners have contended before us that the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 24.10.1997 was supporting the 3 their case, and the applications ought to have been dismissed, the same was not placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal followed the subsequent order dated 4.11.1997 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4201 of 1995. 4. With the passage of time and in view of the order passed by us in the connected writ petition, we do not find any reason to consider the challenge against the common judgment. The employees had retired sometime in 1975 and their claims were held up for quite some time. In another connected group of original applications, the Tribunal had pronounced the common judgment on 1.6.1998. Hence the petition is dismissed. 5. Record and Proceedings be returned to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. 6. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]