IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1011 of 2007 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, represented through the Director General, Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Director General, Telecom, New Delhi 3. The Chief General Manager, Telecom Bihar Circle, C.G.M.T., Patna 4. The General Manager, Telecom, G.M.T.D., Darbhanga 5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Telegraph, Madhubani … … Appellants Versus ANIL KUMAR JHA son of Shri Ugra Nand Jha, resident of village Khoir, P.O. Pariharpur, P.S. Raj Nagar, District Madhubani( Bihar … … Respondent For the appellants: Mr. Harendra Prasad Sigh For the respondent: Mr. Binodanand Mishra ----------- 6. 18.4.2009 Heard the parties. We have gone through the judgment of the writ Court under appeal as well as the two relevant orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 16.4.1999 and 6.2.2004. Clause (3) which is by way of direction given by the Tribunal is explicit and clear that the applicants who had been disengaged by the order impugned before the Tribunal, shall be reengaged with continuity of service but without back wages on the terms and conditions as applicable to them. Admittedly, 2 that order attained finality. We have also perused the order dated 6.2.2004 which was passed while disposing of the contempt petition filed by the applicants before the Tribunal for punishing the concerned authority, the appellants herein, for not obeying the order dated 16.4.1999. While disposing of the contempt petition, in paragraph 7 of that order the Tribunal noticed clause (3) of the earlier order which required grant of continuity of service to the concerned applicants without back wages and proceeded to clarify that the said clause meant that the applicants concerned were to be treated in continuous service only from the date of passing of the order, i.e., 16.4.1999. Such clarification was without any application by the authorities either to clarify the order or to review the same. On the basis of such clarification, the Tribunal found it convenient not to proceed further in the contempt proceeding. While it was open to the Tribunal not to proceed in the contempt petition on one ground or the other, it clearly erred in 3 exercising review jurisdiction without there being any application to that effect by the authorities/appellants. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, the writ Court has rightly held that the respondents are duty bound to condone the period of break in service of the concerned applicants from July, 1998 to September, 1999. In our view also, the clarification or observation by the Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the order dated 6.2.2004 is contrary to law and apparently without jurisdiction. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but without costs. Kanth ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)