JUDGMENT : B.J. Shethna, J. Is it open to a party to question the order of the Tribunal based on the concession given by its advocate before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction ? 2. The respondent-original applicant was recruited as Gangmate in 1974 with the petitioners. He was orally directed by the petitioner No.2 to work as Gangman, which amounts to reversion, therefore, such oral order was challenged by the respondent by filing O.A. No.282/93 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). 3. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the original applicant relied on the decision of the Tribunal delivered in O.A. No.62/90. The applicants of O.A. No.62/90 were accepted regularising group "D" category as Railway had taken the stand that there was no rule for direct recruitment for Class-III category. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramkumar and Ors. v. Union of India reported in 1996 (1) SLJ 116 the Tribunal directed the Railway Administration to regulate the claim of those applicants for regularisation in group "C" level in terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. From para 3 of the judgment of the learned Tribunal, it clearly appears that Shri Shevade, learned counsel appearing for the present petitioner had given no objection to issue similar directions to the respondents-present petitioners. Accordingly, while adopting the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in earlier O.A.No.62/90 Railway Administration was directed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.282/93 to regulate claim of the applicants-present respondents for regularisation in group "C" level in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramkumar (supra) and take further action accordingly. The Railway Administration was further directed to intimate the applicant the decision taken thereon and they were directed to complete the process within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order of the Tribunal. This impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal on 16.10.2000 in O.A. No.282/93 was challenged by the petitioner-Union of India and Permanent Way Inspector, Western Railway, Prantij by way of this petition on 11.3.2002. However, regular number to this petition was given only in 2003, as the matter was kept under office objection. This impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal on 16.10.2000 in O.A. No.282/93 was challenged by the petitioner-Union of India and Permanent Way Inspector, Western Railway, Prantij by way of this petition on 11.3.2002. However, regular number to this petition was given only in 2003, as the matter was kept under office objection. From the order sheet of this petition it appears that this writ petition is placed today for the 7th time. It was initially, placed before other Division Bench of this court on 25.3.2003 and, thereafter, it was adjourned from time to time. Today, it was listed before us at Sr. No.4 in the First Urgent Admission Board. 4. At the outset, we may state that when this petition was called out, learned counsel Shri Shevade invited our attention to amendment application i.e. Civil Application No.3336/03 filed in this petition, seeking amendment to the petition by permitting the petitioners to challenge the impugned order dated 29.11.2002 passed by the learned Tribunal in Review Application No.62/02 filed with M.A. No.401/02 and M.A. No.402/02 in O.A. No.282/93 whereby the Tribunal rejected the review application on the ground that it was time barred and also on the ground that it had no substance on merits also. This amendment application was filed before this court only on 9.5.2003, which is placed for the first time before this court along with the aforesaid main writ petition. 5. In the instant case, the Tribunal decided O.A. No.282/93 by its judgment and order dated 16.10.2000. It is stated at the Bar by learned counsel Shri Shevade that review petition was filed before the Tribunal on 21.12.2001 after the period of limitation expired for filing the review application before the Tribunal. In para 6 of the main writ petition it has been stated by the petitioners that they have not filed any appeal or application before this court, Hon'ble Supreme Court or any other courts except an application for review before the Tribunal, without mentioning the fact that the said review application was hopelessly time barred. Be that as it may. 6. In our considered opinion, it was not open to the petitioners to avail two remedies simultaneously; one before this court by way of writ petition and another before the Tribunal by way of review petition. Be that as it may. 6. In our considered opinion, it was not open to the petitioners to avail two remedies simultaneously; one before this court by way of writ petition and another before the Tribunal by way of review petition. It seems that after filing the present petition, the petitioners did not try to get any order in the matter immediately and waited till the order passed by the Tribunal in review petition. It is only after its rejection for the first time the present petition was sought to be argued on merits by the learned counsel for the petitioners. If the petition was heard before the review application decided by the Tribunal, then this court would have straightaway dismissed it on the ground that the petitioners have already availed alternative remedy of review before the Tribunal. Merely because the Tribunal has now decided the review application it would not be a ground to entertain this petition. 7. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petition was maintainable, then also we would not have entertained this petition, because in our considered opinion once concession is made before the lower court, then later on it was not open to any party to question the order of lower court based on such concession, before the higher forum. It is nothing but wastage of valuable time of the court and the parties are put to an unnecessary expenses. Before making the statement, the counsel should have been more careful and vigilant. 8. It was vehemently submitted by learned counsel Shri Shevade that he had never made such concession, before the Tribunal, which is recorded by the Tribunal in para 3 of its judgment. According to his submission there was some misunderstanding on the part of the Tribunal to hold that the matter was covered in favour of the original applicant and that the direction were required to be issued in this case also in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No.62/90. 9. We find from the memo of the petition that no such contention is raised that no such concession was made before the learned Tribunal. We also find from the memo of review application filed before the Tribunal that no such contention was ever raised before the Tribunal when the petitioners approached the Tribunal by way of review. 9. We find from the memo of the petition that no such contention is raised that no such concession was made before the learned Tribunal. We also find from the memo of review application filed before the Tribunal that no such contention was ever raised before the Tribunal when the petitioners approached the Tribunal by way of review. Copy of the review application was not placed on record, which is now produced by learned counsel Shri Shevade before us. From the careful perusal of the same, we find that it has been only stated in para 5 (vii) that "The Tribunal has committed an error in observing that respondents had no objection if directions similar to those given in O.A. No.62/90 were given in the present case". Except this no other averment is made in it on this point. That apart, from the impugned order dated 29.11.2002 passed by the Tribunal on Review Application No.62/02 with M.A. No.401/02 & M.A. No.402/02 in O.A. No.282/93 we find that this contention, which was raised by Shri Shevade before us was never argued before the Tribunal orally though Shri Shevade himself appeared before the Tribunal. 10. In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that when the order passed by the lower court based on the concession of the party, then such order cannot be later on questioned by the party before the higher forum. 11. In view of the above discussion, this petition is required to be dismissed without going into any other question raised in it and accordingly it is dismissed. Once the impugned petition is dismissed there is no question of entertaining amendment application i.e. Civil Application No.3336/03 and accordingly it is dismissed. 12. Before parting, we must state that now a days there is a growing tendency amongst the litigants to approach the higher courts after making concession before the trial court making grievance that no such statement or concession was made but wrongly recorded by the lower court in the order. This has to be viewed seriously. Merely because the petitioner is Union of India it cannot afford to waste valuable time of the court by filing such frivolous matter. This matter was argued for a long time by learned counsel Shri Shevade, which has consumed considerable valuable time of the court and thereby deprived other genuine litigants whose cases were on Board. Merely because the petitioner is Union of India it cannot afford to waste valuable time of the court by filing such frivolous matter. This matter was argued for a long time by learned counsel Shri Shevade, which has consumed considerable valuable time of the court and thereby deprived other genuine litigants whose cases were on Board. Therefore, while dismissing this petition, the petitioners are directed to pay special costs of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be deposited by them before the Registrar of this court within one month from today. This amount be recovered by Union of India from the concerned officer, who is ultimately found responsible for filing such frivolous petition. 13. Accordingly, the main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.715/03 as well as Civil Application No.3336/03 are summarily dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000/-. Petition rejected with special costs.