ORDER : J.S. Verma, J. 1. The short point involved for decision in this appeal is the meaning of the expression "Authorised Strength" in point 4 and its answer contained in the Office Memorandum dated 19-4-1985, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, which is as under: "Whether laid down three-grade structure has to be implemented on authorised strength or posted strength? "On authorised strength. 2. The occasion for issuance of the OM dated 19-4-1985, was to clear certain doubts which had been expressed about the manner in which the Government orders contained in its earlier order dated 15-10-1984 were to be implemented. The above Point 4 is the clarification related to the provision/introduction of Highly Skilled Grade-II and Highly Skilled Grade-I for common category job listed in Annexure I classified as "Skilled Jobs" in the percentage specified therein. 3. The dispute in the present case relates to machinists of Rifle Factory at Ishapore wherein the sanctioned strength was in excess of the actual strength determined from time to time. The dispute is whether the expression "Authorised Strength" in the OM dated 19-4-1985, meant the sanctioned strength or the actual strength in the cadre. The Tribunal has held that the expression "Authorised Strength" in the context means the sanctioned strength and not the lesser actual strength at the relevant time. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the expression "Authorised Strength" should be construed to mean the actual strength which is lesser at any given point of time. Learned counsel also referred to a subsequent letter of the Director General, Ordnance Factory, dated 14-6-1990, attempting to give a clarification on this aspect. We are unable to accept this submission. 5. The expression "Authorised Strength" as distinguished from the expression "Posted Strength" in the OM dated 19-4-1985, must mean the sanctioned strength as distinct from the actual strength. In other words, the expression "Posted Strength" would mean the lesser actual strength and not the larger sanctioned strength because of the expression "Posted Strength" being used as distinct from the "Authorised Strength". The conclusion reached by the Tribunal does not, therefore, suffer from any infirmity. We may add that the attempt made by the Director General, Ordnance Factory, in the letter dated 14-6-1990 by way of clarification to state differently is ineffective inasmuch as the meaning of the expression is clear. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal does not, therefore, suffer from any infirmity. We may add that the attempt made by the Director General, Ordnance Factory, in the letter dated 14-6-1990 by way of clarification to state differently is ineffective inasmuch as the meaning of the expression is clear. The language of the OM issued by the Government of India being clear, the letter of the Director General is of no consequence. 6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.