Judgment S.B. Sinha, J. A short question which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether the benefit of up-gradation according to bench marks of skilled categories would be calculated on "Authorised Strength" or "Actual Strength". The respondents were/are working in Rifle Factory, Ichapore. The Central Government issued a circular as regard fitment of the existing industrial workers in the post of "Highly Skilled Grade-II" and "Highly Skilled Grade-I". The mode and manner of posting in the said posts whether to be made on the basis of actual strength and/or sanctioned strength was doubted. The Central Government answered the query in terms of an Office Memorandum No.1 (2)/80/D(EDC/IC)/ Wo, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 19th April, 1985 to the following effect:- "Subject: Fitness of Defence Industrial Workers/Hon-Industry workers in the pay scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission. Doubts have been expressed about the manner in which the Government orders contained in Ministry of Defence sanction letter Nos. 3808-23/DS(D&M)/CIV. I/84, dated 15 October, 1984 are to be implemented. The position is clarified hereunder:- Points Answer 1) *************** *********** 4) Whether laid down three grade : On authorised strength. structure has to be implemented on authorised strength or posted strength. 2. This issue with the concurrence of Finance Division vide their ID No. 419/Dir (AF/Org.) of 1985. Sd/- (Rama Krishna) Deputy Secretary to the Government of India." 2. It is not in dispute that "authorised strength" means "sanctioned strength" and "posted strength" means "actual strength". As despite such clarification relief was not being granted to the "Machinists" of the appellant, the application was filed before this court and the same was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench which was marked as T.A. No. 1369 of 86. By a Judgment dated 4th December, 1989, the learned Tribunal held:- "After giving a careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the various contentions of the applicants. The item (4) of Annexure-'C' is quite clear and unambiguous and speaks of the authorised strength. This clarification was issued by the Ministry in continuation of Annexure 'A' conveying the sanction of the President. The item (4) of Annexure-'C' is quite clear and unambiguous and speaks of the authorised strength. This clarification was issued by the Ministry in continuation of Annexure 'A' conveying the sanction of the President. We are unable to understand how the office of the DGOF, which is a subordinate office, could issue instructions vide Annexure-'D' directing redistribution of posts to be effected on the basis of 'actual strength' in violation of the Ministry's clarification of the Presidential Order specifying 'authorised strength'." 3. Another application was filed by Durgapada Mukherjee & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. 923 of 1990) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench on 22nd August, 1994, questioning the decision of the Anomalies Committee set up for ameliorating the service conditions of Industrial workers under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, wherein the appellants claimed implementation of their recommendations of the Anomalies Committee by upgrading certain percentage of posts in skilled grade to High Skilled Grade-II and Higher Skilled Grade-I as per the Presidential Order dated 15th October, 1984 and the subsequent clarificatory order dated 19th April, 1985. 4. The reliefs made in the said application, inter alia, were: "(b) Declaration that the Fitters in RFI are entitled to be upgraded from the skilled grade to the Highly Skilled Grades in RFI on the basis of the Policy decision of GOI clarified by Presidential Order and upheld in the Judgment dated 04.12.1989 in T.A. No. 1369 of 1989 (Chiranjib Kanungo and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) and/or in the Judgment dated 22.08.1994 in O.A. No. 923 (Durgapada Mukherjee & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) notwithstanding any subsequent clarification made by OFB. (c) Order directing the respondents to upgrade the applicants and each of them from the skilled grade (scale Rs.950-1500/-) to Highly Skilled Grade-II (scale Rs.1200-1800/-) and to Highly Skilled Grade-I (scale of Rs.1320-2050/-) with effect from 15.10.1984 and to pay all arrears of salary and allowances admissible to them in accordance with law." 5. The learned Tribunal noticed the direction of the Ministry of Defence contained in its letter No. 1(82)178/D9 (Fy. I); dated 9th February, 1979 and held: "We have gone through Annexure-RI on which Mr. Das has placed his reliance to contend that the OFB has necessary powers to decide the number of posts to be upgraded on the basis of actual strength. I); dated 9th February, 1979 and held: "We have gone through Annexure-RI on which Mr. Das has placed his reliance to contend that the OFB has necessary powers to decide the number of posts to be upgraded on the basis of actual strength. He also points out that the requirement of Machinists in the Rifle factory has been determined by the OFB and if now upgradation is effected on the basis of authorised strength which is much more than the actual or existing strength, then there will be more number of upgraded posts than the actual requirement which is not justified. 6. We may quote below Annexure-RI which is an extract from Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(82)/78/D9 (Fy.I) dated 9.2.79 : "5(e) 'Creation of temporary posts The Board will fix limits for creation of of NGOs, NIEs and Industrial such posts depending upon workload. Establishments. The number of Hqrs. posts will be restricted to 10 NGOs and 20 NIEs for a period upto two years.' It is obvious that this authority vested on the O F B is in respect of creation of temporary posts and not in respect of permanent posts. There is no dispute that O F B has power to fix limits for creation of temporary posts depending on workload. But so far as authorised strength of a factory is concerned, it is fixed by the higher authorities i.e. Ministry itself. In that view of the matter, we are of the concerned opinion that on the basis of this authority dated 9.2.79, the O F B can not modify the authorised strength and hence the decision to restrict the upgradation on the basis of actual strength instead of authorised strength as taken by the O F B is illegal. We hold that the O F B has got no authority to modify the Presidential Order in respect of upgradation with reference to authorised strength unless appropriately delegated by the competent authority". 7. The matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 9095 of 1995, disposed of on 12th February, 1997, (Secretary, Min. of Defence and Ors. 7. The matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 9095 of 1995, disposed of on 12th February, 1997, (Secretary, Min. of Defence and Ors. vs. Durgapada Mukherjee and Ors.) and having regard to the aforementioned clarification of the Central Government contained in Office Memorandum dated 19th April, 1985, it was observed :- "The expression 'Authorised Strength' as distinguished from the expression 'Posted Strength' in the O. M. dated 19th April, 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 14th June, 1990 by way of clarification to state differently is ineffective inasmuch as the meaning of the expression is clear. The language of the O.M. issued by the Government of India being clear, the letter of the Director General is of no consequence." In the instant case, the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned order followed the said decision of the Apex Court as well as the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. 8. Mr. P.K. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the earlier decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, as also the decision of the Apex Court should not have been followed by the learned Tribunal as the Office Memorandum dated 15th October, 1984 was not correctly reproduced. According to the learned Counsel in the letter No. 3808/DS/D & M/Civ-1/84, dated 15th October, 1984 issued by Shri Rama Krishna, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in paragraph 1(ii) at page-3, after the word 'skilled' in fourth line of the said paragraph, the words "depending on the functions requirement of highly skilled" have been deliberately omitted by the respondents/applicants. Clause 1(ii) of the said Office Memo dated 15th October, 1984 which was annexed to the original application and ultimately considered by the Apex Court reads thus :- "(ii) Provision/introduction of Highly Skilled Grade-II (Rs.330-480) and Highly Skilled Grade-I (Rs.380-560) for common category job listed in Annexure-I classified as 'skilled jobs, in the following manner as a bench mark percentage:- a) Highly Skilled Grade -I (Rs.380-560) 15% b) Highly Skilled Grade-II (Rs.330-480) 20% c) Skilled Grade (Rs.260-400) 65%" 9. It is not in dispute that the Apex Court in terms of its Judgment dated 12th February, 1997 in Civil Appeal No. 9095/95 interpreted the said clarificatory letter. 10. It cannot be doubted that the Tribunal was bound to pass an order following the order passed by the Apex Court of India. The question which arises for consideration is whether this Court would refuse to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court only because allegedly the words "depending on the functional requirement" after the words "highly skilled" in the aforesaid Presidential Order were not considered. 11. Having heard the learned counsel of the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. We say so firstly because it was the duty of the appellant herein to bring the same to the notice of the Tribunal and/or to the Supreme Court of India when the matter was being considered on two earlier occasions. The said orders of the Tribunal and the Judgment of the Apex Court would operate as res judicata, assuming that the said words had not been brought to the notice of the Apex Court. Secondly: assuming that the same had not been brought to the notice of the Apex Court, the same would not make any substantial difference. As indicated hereinbefore, the words 'authorised strength' are synonymous with 'sanctioned strength'. Such sanction in the strength of the cadre is granted by the competent authority, having regard to various factors including the functional requirements of the workmen. In other words, the quantum of production, future requirements, inter alia, are the relevant factors which fall for consideration by the appropriate authority before an order sanctioning the number of workmen in each cadre is passed. In other words, the quantum of production, future requirements, inter alia, are the relevant factors which fall for consideration by the appropriate authority before an order sanctioning the number of workmen in each cadre is passed. As such an order sanctioning the strength of workman was passed having regard to the functional requirement of higher skilled workers, we are of the opinion that the contention of Mr. Roy cannot be accepted. Thirdly: such strength in the cadre of highly skilled workers having been sanctioned by the higher authority, it is not for the appellant herein to raise this contention which would run counter to the directive of the Central Government. As noticed hereinbefore this Circular letter issued by the Central Government as also the clarificatory letter came up for consideration before the Tribunal as also the Supreme Court of India. The said order has been acted upon, inter alia, in case of the 'Machinists' and, thus, the benefit of such judicial pronouncement could not be denied to the respondents. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this writ application which is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. H. Banerji, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.