Judgment 1. Union of India has filed the present petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 31 March 2000 in re. the claim registered as O.A. No. 449 of 1994 : I. D. Boutha vs. Union of India and others. 2. The issues are within the establishment of the Railways. In the present case the Eastern Railways. 3. From the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), it is clear that for having worked in the interest of the Government of India, as others were not available, respondent I.D. Boutha had to step in and do what others did not do or were not available for doing. 4. It is clear, as is recorded by the CAT, that respondent I.D. Boutha could not be made to suffer when he missed out initial training as other staff were not available. Instead of appreciating this aspect and giving him credit in service for volunteering to make himself available, the respondent now had to knock the door of the Central Administrative Tribunal that he has been denied his rightful scale and promotion both. 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal in paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 has effectively dealt with the matter by recording that (a) the respondent-applicant was not spared for the training in time, which resulted in disturbing his seniority and ultimately his promotion, (b) the petitioners respondents had practically admitted his claim and subsequently fixed his seniority in the scale (without monetary benefits) and (c) it is on record that on behalf of the Railways it had been accepted in no uncertain terms that the respondent-applicant could not be spared in time for initial training at ZTS/Bhuli as well as for his line training due to administrative reasons because the respondent-applicant was familiar with the work at the establishment under the PWI/Latehar and no staff knowing this work was available, thus he could not be spared. 6. The court is a little surprised that instead of accepting the decision of the CAT the Railway Establishment has chosen to impugn it by a writ petition. This in itself indicates that no one at Railway Administration desires to take an administrative responsibility to give finality to the order of the CAT. 7. This petition is dismissed. 8. Further, as a token, Rs. This in itself indicates that no one at Railway Administration desires to take an administrative responsibility to give finality to the order of the CAT. 7. This petition is dismissed. 8. Further, as a token, Rs. 500/- are saddled on the Railway Establishment as costs to be paid to the respondent-applicant for having delayed the implementation of the decision of the CAT without any cause for more than one year. Thus, dismissed.