S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner herein has filed a contempt Application before the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents 1 and 2 therein which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by an order dated 10th April, 2000, upon however, conversion of the same into an original application O. A. 3371 of 1992 with the following observations:"the respondents are, however, directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of executive Engineer, Superintending engineer and Chief Engineer based on the seniority given to the applicant in the category of Deputy Executive engineer and as was done in the case of persons covered by R. P. No. 2313/1987 (R. P. 2089 of 1989), if the applicant is eligible for such promotion on merits. The respondents are directed to work out the amount if any, which will be payable to the applicant and deposit the same in the Bank as was done in the case of other applicants pending finalisation of the matter in the supreme Court. " ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed a representation petition being R. P. 2313 of 1987 before the learned Tribunal. The said application was disposed of by a Full Bench of the Tribunal by an order dated 13-9-1989 holding:the next question is whether the tribunal can give a direction as per his prayer. It is well established that no one has right to promotion but everyone has a right for consideration for promotion. As the promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer at the relevant time was to be made by selection and the selection was to be made in consultation with the P. S. C. , we are in no position to say that the petitioner s appointment as Deputy executive Engineer should be regularized with effect from 11/55 but in the light of the foregoing analysis we are satisfied that the petitioner had every right to be considered for promotion as Deputy executive Engineer with effect from 11/55 when his juniors were promoted and we direct the respondents to consider his case accordingly. The next question is whether the petitioner can be promoted as executive Engineer with effect from 1-4-64 as Superintending Engineer with effect from 1-8-1976 and as Chef engineer with effect from 1-1-1980 as claimed by him. The next question is whether the petitioner can be promoted as executive Engineer with effect from 1-4-64 as Superintending Engineer with effect from 1-8-1976 and as Chef engineer with effect from 1-1-1980 as claimed by him. The respondents have stated that as the petitioner is holding the post of Deputy Executive engineer only temporarily the question of his promotion as Executive engineer, Superintending Engineer or chief Engineer does not arise till his appointment as Deputy Executive engineer is regularized. He has however been promoted as Executive engineer temporarily on 11-3-1987. It has been stated that the Departmental review Committee at its meeting held on 13-10-1988 recommended his promotion as Executive Engineer with effect from 1982 and that he was considered not fit for promotion as superintending Engineer. It has also been stated that no junior to him in the panel of 1982 (Executive Engineers) had been promoted, the question of promoting the petitioner with effect from 12-4-1984 does not arise. It is not correct to say that the petitioner still holds the post of Deputy Executive engineer temporarily. In their counter-affidavit to RMP. 1949/89, the respondents have stated that his appointment as Deputy Executive engineer was regularised with effect from 27-2-1960 later revised to 22-2-62 vide G. O. Ms. No. 126, dated 6-4-88 and g. O. Ms. No. 314 dt. 13-9-88. Evidently the counter-affidavit to the main RP, which was filed in December 1987, has become out-dated to some extent. The questions arise in view of these developements: Firstly considering the fact that his services as Deputy executive Engineer have been regularised with effect from 22-2-62 whether the petitioner has been considered for promotion as Executive engineer in due time after he became eligible for it. The respondents have stated that the Review D. P. C has recommended his notional promotion with effect from 1982. The question is whether he was not eligible or considered fit for promotion earlier. It is seen from G. O. Ms. No. 422, dated 28-11-1988 that the petitioner was considered for promotion as Executive engineer with effect from 2-2-1973 but the Review D. P. C. did not find him fit for inclusion in any of the panels from 1973 to 1981 and recommended his notional promotion as Executive engineer with effect from 1982. It is seen from G. O. Ms. No. 422, dated 28-11-1988 that the petitioner was considered for promotion as Executive engineer with effect from 2-2-1973 but the Review D. P. C. did not find him fit for inclusion in any of the panels from 1973 to 1981 and recommended his notional promotion as Executive engineer with effect from 1982. the petitioner claims that he is entitled to promotion as Executive Engineer with effect from 1-4-1964 when his junior in the category of Junior Engineer was promoted on the basis that he was entitled to promotion as Deputy executive Engineer in 11/55. If, therefore, his case is reviewed and he is considered from an earlier date, if follows that his case for promotion as executive Engineer from an earlier date would also have to be considered. In the circumstances, we direct that the case of the petitioner for promotion as executive Engineer be reconsidered after examining his case for redetermining the date of his promotion as Deputy Executive engineer and refixing his seniority in that category. Secondly, his further promotion as superintending Engineer and Chef engineer depends on when he is promoted as Executive Engineer and superintending Engineer, when the completed the eligibility for promotion to the higher posts. It is seen from g. O. Ms. No. 422 dt. 28-11-1988 that the respondents have taken the view that the question of promoting him as superintending Engineer with effect from 12-4-1984 does not arise as he has been given notional promotion as executive Engineer only with effect from 1982 and no one junior to him in that panel has yet been promoted. This position would however have to be reviewed if his claim for promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 11/55 is conceded and consequently his promotion as executive Engineer is advanced. It is however needless to mention that all the posts of Executive Engineer, superintending Engineer and Chief engineer being selection posts, his promotion to those posts depends not so much on his seniority as on the evaluation of his relative merit and ability and inclusion in panels. This has necessarily to be left for consideration of the D. P. C. concerned. We can only say that the consideration of his case above be expedited and completed within four months". This has necessarily to be left for consideration of the D. P. C. concerned. We can only say that the consideration of his case above be expedited and completed within four months". ( 3 ) AS the petitioner was not granted the entire relief as prayed for by him, he filed an application for grant of special leave before the Supreme Court of India, which was marked as S. L. P. Civil No. 6362/90. The said application was disposed of by the apex Court by an order dated 26-11-1990 observing:"without prejudice to the petitioner s right to move the appropriate authority for implementation of whatever direction that is contained in the impugned judgment, we see no merit in the challenge against the judgment. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner has also filed Review r. M. P. No. 4348 of 1989 before the learned tribunal which was disposed of by Full bench of the Tribunal by an order dated 19th June, 1992 with the following observations:"in view of the existence of the appellate order, there may not be any justification in reviewing the order of the erstwhile Tribunal, even otherwise no point is made out for a review of the said order. Applicant seeks implementation of the order in it. It is open for him to take appropriate steps which are open to him under law. " ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner filed an application for initiation of proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act. The said application, however, was converted into an original application being O. A. 3371 of 1992. The learned Tribunal, while disposing of the said original application by order dated 10th April, 2000, held;"it is undisputed fact that the applicant filed R. P. No. 2313 of 1987 and obtained orders in his favour on 13-9-1989. It is also a fact that these orders are not set aside nor stayed by any superior Court. As per the above judgment, it is held that the applicant had every right to be considered for promotion as Deputy Executive engineer with effect from 11/55 when his juniors were promoted. It is also directed that the case of the applicant for promotion as Executive Engineer be considered after examining his case for redetermining the date of his promotion as Deputy Executive engineer and refixing the seniority in that category. It is also directed that the case of the applicant for promotion as Executive Engineer be considered after examining his case for redetermining the date of his promotion as Deputy Executive engineer and refixing the seniority in that category. Nextly, the promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer depend upon when he is promoted to the post of deputy Executive Engineer and executive Engineer when he completed eligibility for promotion to the higher posts. Thus, in the above order it was directed to review his claim for promotion as Deputy executive Engineer with effect from 11/55 and hence, to review the consequential promotion as and when he becomes eligible and qualified as per rules. Further it is also held that the selection post has to be considered by the DPC. Now it is also a fact that the applicant s case has not been reviewed in pursuance of the above judgment. " ( 6 ) HAVING held so, the learned Tribunal proceeded further on the basis that the matters of similarly placed persons were disposed of by the Tribunal in R. P. No. 2089 of 1989 and batch and that the Government questioned the said order before the Apex court. In the aforementioned situation, despite the contention raised by the learned government Pleader before the Tribunal that no order should be passed, it was observed:"however, it is a fact that the applicant obtained the orders in the above R. P. No. 2313 of 1987 dated 13-9-1989. Since then the applicant is pursuing the matter to get the reliefs granted in the above order. But, he could not succeed to get the above order implemented even though the same is not set aside nor stayed nor reversed. Further, the applicant also retired from service on 30-6-1992. Thus, now the applicant is aged about 64 years. Still he could not get the benefits of the orders passed in his favour. Even though the report of the committee constituted by the government under G. O. Ms. No. 204 dated 24-6-1996 covers the case of the applicant, till now no relief is granted to the applicant. " ( 7 ) IT was further held that the petitioner herein is not a party in O. A. No. 2089 of 1989 and batch and he has pursued his relief independently by filing R. P. No. 2313 of 1987. No. 204 dated 24-6-1996 covers the case of the applicant, till now no relief is granted to the applicant. " ( 7 ) IT was further held that the petitioner herein is not a party in O. A. No. 2089 of 1989 and batch and he has pursued his relief independently by filing R. P. No. 2313 of 1987. Having held so, it was observed. "however, the decision in R. P. No. 2313 of 1987 (R. P. No. 2089 of 1989) is under appeal before the Supreme Court in civil Appeal Nos. 4799-4844 of 1997. Though no interim orders have been issued the very same matters which have been agitated by the applicants in O. A. No. 2089/98 are under examination in Civil Appeal Nos. 4799- 4844 of 1997 and batch. Accordingly, any decision taken by the Supreme court in the above Civil Appeals will apply to the case of the applicant in r. P. No. 2089/89 (R. P. 2313 of 1987) also. The respondents are however, directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of executive Engineer, Superintending engineer and Chief Engineer based on the seniority given to the applicant in the category of Deputy Executive engineer and as was done in the case of persons covered by R. P. No. 2313/1987, (R. P. No. 2089 of 1989) if the applicant is eligible for such promotion on merits. The respondents are directed to work out the amounts if any, which will be payable to the applicant and deposit the same in the Bank as was done in the case of other applicants pending finalisation of the matter in the supreme Court. " ( 8 ) THE writ petitioner, who appeared in person, submits that as admittedly he is not a party to R. P. 2089 of 1989, the tribunal acted illegally in issuing the aforementioned directions. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to the fact that the said decision has since been reversed by the Apex Court in Govt. of A. P. vs. A. P. Jaisival1. The submission made by the petitioner, appears to be correct. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to the fact that the said decision has since been reversed by the Apex Court in Govt. of A. P. vs. A. P. Jaisival1. The submission made by the petitioner, appears to be correct. As the petitioner was not a party to the said judgment in Jaiswal s case (supra), the implementation of the judgment dated 13-9-1989 passed in his favour in r. P. No. 2313 of 1987 could not have been deferred nor any other direction could have been issued contrary to or inconsistent with the judgment of the Tribunal dated 13-9-1989 in R. P. 2313 of 1987, It is a trite law that the decision in Jaiswal s case (supra) would not be binding on the petitioner, as he is not a party thereto. The learned Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion ought to have issued a direction upon the respondents to implement its earlier judgment dated 13-9-1989 in R. P. No. 2313 of 1987 particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already retired and that he has not been paid his retiral and other terminal benefits. In Union of India vs. S. Rly. Employees Co-op. Stores Workmen union2, the Apex Court held:". . . . . . . . . . IN our view, the order of the tribunal as confirmed by this Court is final and binding between the parties to the present litigation. It is true as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Union of India that in similar matter arising out of the order of the central Administrative Tribunal, hyderabad Bench, this Court has taken the view that such workmen cannot be treated as direct employees of the Railways. This decision cannot be of any avail in present proceedings. The appellant cannot attempt to whittle down the effect of the order of the Tribunal in the present proceedings which got confirmed by this Court. On the principle of res judicata it will be binding between the parties especially when the review proceedings have been dismissed by this Court. . . . . The appellant cannot attempt to whittle down the effect of the order of the Tribunal in the present proceedings which got confirmed by this Court. On the principle of res judicata it will be binding between the parties especially when the review proceedings have been dismissed by this Court. . . . . " ( 9 ) WE, therefore, in modification of the order dated 10-04-2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in O. A. No. 3371 of 1992, direct the respondents to implement the order dated 13-9-1989 in R. P. No. 2313 of 1987 at an early date and not later than six weeks from the date of communication of this order and to pay the writ petitioner all the consequential benefits flowing therefrom including fixation of pension and payment of arrears etc. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.