Judgment Ganguly, J.: This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench whereunder the learned Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous petition filed by the respondent No.1 with a direction upon the Railway Authorities to implement the order dated 30th August, 1991 and in so far as the same relates to the respondent No.1 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the said order dated 20th December, 1999. 2. The facts on the basis of which the said order was passed have been discussed in detail in the order itself. From the order it also appears as the said miscellaneous petition of was the respondent No.1 was taken up by the Tribunal and the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein, appearing before the Tribunal, did not resist the prayers made by the respondent No.1 in the said miscellaneous petition nor any reply was filed. The stand of the petitioner herein before the Tribunal was that the matter may be decided on the basis of the material-on-record. 3. It appears that initially a proceeding was filed before the Tribunal being application No. O.A. 837 of 1989 and the respondent No.1 here was respondent No.4 in the said O.A. No. 837 of 1989. The same was disposed of by an earlier bench of the Tribunal by an order dated 30th August, 1991. Against the said order, the matter went right up to the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also did not interfere with the said order of the Tribunal. 4. Thereafter a review petition was filed before the Tribunal and some clarifications were given on there review petition which have also noted in the order under challenge. Subsequently, a contempt application was also filed before Tribunal by the 13 applicants in O. A. No. 837 of 1989 alleging non-compliance with direction given in the judgment dated 30th August, 1991. The same was also disposed of by the Tribunal byan order dated 5.3.1993 in favour of the applicants. 5. Subsequently, a contempt application was also filed before Tribunal by the 13 applicants in O. A. No. 837 of 1989 alleging non-compliance with direction given in the judgment dated 30th August, 1991. The same was also disposed of by the Tribunal byan order dated 5.3.1993 in favour of the applicants. 5. But, the respondent No.1 was not a party in the contempt petition and the grievance of the respondent No.1 is that after the disposal of the contempt petition, the Railway Authorities implemented the order and the judgment dated 30th August, 1991 only in respect of those persons who moved the contempt petition and the respondent No.1 was excluded. As such the present application was filed by the respondent No. 1. 6. This Court which going through the order under challenge finds that all aspects on the matter have was been properly noted by the learned Tribunal and the Tribunals and the learned Tribunal is right in arriving at the conclusion that the Railway Authorities have "sat tight over the compliance of the Tribunal's aforesaid order so far as it relates to the present petitioner for the reasons• best know to them, which have not been disclosed to us. The Tribunal cannot take such conduct on the part of the respondents going on merrily with the abuse of the Court's process and frustrating the ends of Justice by not complying with the order of the Tribunal, which was applicable to the present applicant". 7. The learned Counsel for the writ petition has not been able to point out before this Court that how this said findings of the Tribunal are au erroneous either in law or on facts. 8. The learned Counsel merely submitted that there was a fire in the office of the railways and many papers have been burnt in the said fire. This Court is of the view fire may burn the papers but it cannot extinguish the right which the respondent No. 1 has obtained from the final order passed in the proceeding being O. A. No. 837 of 1989. Apart from that the petitioner is pursuing this litigation in order to obtain an employment which is the only source of livelihood for him. The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 must be kept in mind by the Court. Apart from that the petitioner is pursuing this litigation in order to obtain an employment which is the only source of livelihood for him. The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 must be kept in mind by the Court. In that context, the Railway Authorities, being a Governmental authorities must act like a model employer and should not harass an applicant whose application has succeeded before the Tribunal, the orders have attained finality. In the facts of this case we think this is at all not fit and proper for this Court to intervene in this writ petition on the prayer of the Railway Authorities. On the other hand fairness and equity demands that this writ petition be dismissed forthwith with a mandate upon the railway administration to comply with the direction contained in the order of the learned Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this Court dismiss the writ petition and directs the Railway Authorities, the petitioner herein to implement the order of the Tribunal as early as .possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. Since this matter is pending for a quite some time and this Court is of the view that the respondent No. 1 has suffered a great deal of harassment, the time limit of two months is peremptory in nature. The writ petition is thus dismissed and the order of the Tribunal is affirmed. Ray, J.: I agree. S.K. G.