Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The petitioner Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dated 23.09.2004 whereby the learned Tribunal while upholding the preliminary objection, of O.A. being barred by limitation, after recording the finding on merit to the effect that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be classified as separate class, rather has to be treated as direct recruitment, has observed for corrective action. 2. For the convenience Para 10 of the order is extracted as follows: -“No doubt, we have come to the positive conclusion that this O.A. is not maintainable and hit by law of limitation, it is very unfortunate, that despite that the appellant has been made a victim by applying wrong rule, we are not in a position to grant any relief due to the technical objection of limitation even though he has a meritorious case. We can only observe that this order would not come in the way of the official respondents, in case they intent to take corrective action and grant any relief to the applicant.” 3. Even on earlier occasion, the Supreme Court has disapproved such sort of practice of the Tribunal. Reference be made to the State of Rajasthan vs. D.D. Sood, reported in 2002 (9) SCC page 458. In the said case, a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was upheld by the CAT. However, while upholding the preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the issue concerning the constitution of the Board of Revenue and the manner of appointment of the Chairman particularly members belonging to IAS cadre. The order was challenged by the State Government before the Apex Court. The apex Court observed as follows: - “We, however, clarify that in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, those observations ought not to have been made by CAT.” 4. The Apex Court in Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC page 74, advised the High Court to refrain itself from expressing any opinion on merit of the case if the Court was not inclined to entertain the same on the ground of availability of the alternate remedy. The Apex Court in Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC page 74, advised the High Court to refrain itself from expressing any opinion on merit of the case if the Court was not inclined to entertain the same on the ground of availability of the alternate remedy. The Court observed as follows: - “The observations made by the High Court in its Judgment on merits of the case was totally uncalled for and deserves to be set aside.” 5. We have come across Judgment s wherein the learned Judges have dealt with the issues in great detail and recorded finding regarding which neither there is any pleading nor relief claimed as such in ultimate conclusion, no direction in that regard. We are of the view that such an exercise is only a waste of time and energy. Such orders creates confusion in the mind of the party and embarrassment to the authorities concerned. It is unfair to arouse a hope which party may not get ultimately. Taking the case in hand, irrespective of the fact that respondent has failed before the Tribunal, he may be tempted to put pressure on the administration to grant him relief as observed by the Tribunal. Correctness of the observation cannot be tested as Department cannot challenge the same, there being no direction. Truly a finding without a consequential order is not required to be complied with and non-compliance of such a finding or observation does not constitute contempt. Thus, we are of the view of that the observations made by the Tribunal in Para 10 of the order for the consideration of the relief prayed in favour of the respondent is uncalled for. In fact once the petition was found to be barred by limitation, the long discussion on merit was not required. With this clarification, the petition stands dismissed.