(1) IA No. ... of 1995 in CA No. 3844 of 1989 for clarification is taken on board. (2) IN Civil No. 3844 of 1989 decided by a two-Judge bench of this court (of which one of us was a member) the question before this court was whether the retrospective operation of the amended Rule 13 of the Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961 (the Rules) was constitutionally valid. Upholding the judgment of the central Administrative tribunal, this court came to the conclusion that so far as the retrospective operation of Rule 13 of the Rules was concerned, it was unconstitutional and as such inoperative. Prior to the amendment of the Rules, out of turn promotions were given to the Scheduled Caste candidates on the interpretation of the existing rules. The tribunal came to the conclusion that the Scheduled Caste candidates were not entitled to the benefits under the existing rules and as such promotions given to them were struck down. Meanwhile, Rule 13 of the Rules was amended with retrospective effect to leglise the promotion and also to overcome the judgment of the tribunal. This court upheld the judgment of the tribunal on the interpretation of the existing rules and also came to the conclusion that the amended Rule 13 of the Rules, to the extent it was operative retrospectively, was invalid. (3) THE tribunal had given relief only to the petitioner before the tribunal namely Mr T.R. Mohanty. This court while dismissing the appeal filed by the Union of India granted relief to all those officials belonging to general category who were similarly situated to that of Mr Mohanty. (4) THIS application has been filed by the Union of India for seeking directions regarding that part of the tribunals judgment where under the promotions already given to Respondents 2 to 9 who belong to the Scheduled Caste category have been protected. The contention of Mr D.P. Gupta, learned Solicitor General is that since large number of candidates are involved, it would not be in the interest of the administration to promote all the persons similarly situated like Mr Mohanty to the higher cadres to which Respondents 2 to 9 have already been promoted. The contention of Mr D.P. Gupta, learned Solicitor General is that since large number of candidates are involved, it would not be in the interest of the administration to promote all the persons similarly situated like Mr Mohanty to the higher cadres to which Respondents 2 to 9 have already been promoted. In the application, it has been highlighted that if the judgment is implemented by protecting the promotions of Respondents 2 to 9, then in Grade III 423 additional posts shall have to be created to accommodate the general category candidates. Similarly, 300 posts in the cadre of Junior Administrative Grade and 123 posts in the Non-Functional Selection Grade shall have to be created. (5) ACCORDING to the Union of India, the creation of such a large number of posts will create imbalance in the cadre and will also cause severe operational problems in the functioning of the Department. (6) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the judgment of this court upholding the judgment of the tribunal has to be implemented. Appreciating the difficulties highlighted by the Union of India in this application, we are of the view that the Union of India should make all efforts to protect the promotions of Scheduled Caste candidates, if possible. We are further of the view that if in the implementation of the directions given by this court, it becomes necessary to revert the Scheduled Caste candidates from the higher posts to which they have been promoted under the existing rules (unamended) or under the amended rules, that may be done and we modify the tribunals judgment to that extent. We, however, make it clear that any financial benefits given to the Scheduled Caste candidates while working in the higher posts, shall not be withdrawn and be protected as personal to them. We further make it clear that Mr Mohanty shall be entitled to the relief keeping in view his position in seniority so far as the general category candidates are concerned. If in the process he is reverted to the lower post no recovery shall be effected from him in respect of money already paid to him. (7) IA No. ... of 1995 is disposed of. (8) IA No. 9 for permission to file contempt petition is dismissed.