S.K.Krishnan, J: Aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2001 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed in Review Application No.21 of 2001, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the same and to remit the matter back to the first respondent for fresh disposal. 2. The facts, leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Rakshak in Railway Protection Force on 21.3.1959. However, he was removed from service on 10.3.1973. Subsequently, he was re-appointed as peon in Electrical Department of Southern Railway by the second respondent by an order No.215, dated 22.9.1976. Thereafter, he was served with a show cause notice on 30.9.1994 by the third respondent as to why his service should not be terminated with effect from 31.3.1994 treating the period of work done by the petitioner after 31.3.1994 as unauthorised. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the Joint Director, Estt. (D and A) Railway Board, in his order, dated 8.6.1999, decided to cut 25% in the monthly pension of the petitioner. On receipt of the above said order, the petitioner gave half a dozen representations to the authorities concerned. As there was no response, challenging the above said order, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected his application on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Again, the petitioner filed a review application, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the petitioner was appointed as peon in the Electrical Department of Southern Railway and retired as Office Superintendent, the application filed by him seeking different reliefs was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner is a member of Railway Protection Force and he should be treated as a member of Armed Forces with effect from 20.9.1985 and that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the case of the petitioner. 5. 5. Further, the learned counsel contended that when the petitioner was reappointed as peon in the Electrical Department of Southern Railway after he had been removed from service from the post of Rakshak, Railway Protection Force, he cannot be treated as a member of R.P.F., but he should be treated as railway servant, which is evident from the proceedings of the authorities concerned and therefore, the Tribunal on gross misconception, dismissed the application of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel would submit that considering the nature of post and the department in which the petitioner held that post, the petition may be ordered as prayed for. 7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that originally the petitioner was appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force, which has been called an armed force of the Union by amending Sec.3 of the Railway Protection Force Act and in such circumstances, what was held by the Tribunal is correct and therefore, no interference is called for. 8. No doubt, initially the petitioner was appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force on 21.3.1959. On certain charges the petitioner was removed from service on 10.3.1973. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as peon in the Electrical Department of Southern Railway by the General Manager, Southern Railway, the second respondent herein, by an order No.215, dated 22.9.1976. The above fact is not disputed by both sides. 9. From the above fact, it is clear that after the removal of the petitioner from the Railway Protection Force, he was appointed as peon in the Electrical Department after three years of his removal. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot be treated as member of Railway Protection Force. But he should be treated as employee of the Southern Railway. 10. The said Office Order No.215 reads as follows: "Shri D.M.Siddhaveeriah, Ex.Rakshak, ASOR/0/SBC (Date of Birth 16.3.1936) is re-appointed as Office peon on pay Rs.196 per month in scale Rs.196-232 as a fresh entrant for all purposes and is posted to Electrical Branch, Headquarters office, Madras, against an existing vacancy of Peon. He has been certified fit in class C-II by AMO/MYS vide physical fitness certificate No.252 of 8.9.76." His reappointment as Office Peon is subject to the following conditions: (a) His services are purely temporary the first year of which will be deemed to be on probation. He has been certified fit in class C-II by AMO/MYS vide physical fitness certificate No.252 of 8.9.76." His reappointment as Office Peon is subject to the following conditions: (a) His services are purely temporary the first year of which will be deemed to be on probation. (b) His previous service on this Railway will not count for any purpose such as pay, increment, leave etc. (c) ***** (d) ***** (e) He will conform to all rules and regulations applicable to his re-appointment." 11.The above order was signed by Senior Personnel Officer/Staff, Headquarters Office, Personnel Branch, Madras-3. 12.The above said order is self-explanatory with regard to the fact that the petitioner was not an employee of Railway Protection Force and he was an employee of the Southern Railway and his previous service as Rakshak in R.P.F., could not be taken into consideration for any purpose. 13. So, now it is crystal clear that the petitioner was employed in the Southern Railway. 14. Further, on a perusal of the subsequent proceedings available in the typed set, namely, show cause notice, dated 30.9.1994, memorandum dated 23.11.1994, chargesheet dated 14.11.1994, enquiry report dated 11.7.1995 and order of punishment dated 8.6.1999, at page Nos.25, 27, 28-31, 36-37 and 40 respectively, it is revealed that they were all signed by the authorities of Southern Railway. 15. The above said documents are also self-explanatory that the petitioner was the employee of Southern Railway. 16. On the basis of the above, we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was a member of armed forces. On the contrary, we accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 17. Now, we see the order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal in R.A.No.21 of 2001 in O.A.No.720 of 2000, dated 20.8.2001 reads as follows: “We find that the applicant was working in the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F. for short) from 1959 to 1973. At the time of entry into the R.P.F., the applicant’s date of birth was entered by mistake as 16.3.1936 and this was rectified as 16.3.1938 during the year 1961, which means that the correction was done when the applicant was working in the R.P.F. at the relevant point of time. At the time of entry into the R.P.F., the applicant’s date of birth was entered by mistake as 16.3.1936 and this was rectified as 16.3.1938 during the year 1961, which means that the correction was done when the applicant was working in the R.P.F. at the relevant point of time. Thus the cause of action for correction of the wrong date of birth arose in 1961 when the applicant was working as a Rakshak in the R.P.F. It is under these circumstances that the main O.A. was disposed of as not maintainable since this tribunal has no jurisdiction over such persons who are members of the R.P.F. This fact was taken note of while disposing of the O.A. as not maintainable.” 18. With the above observation, the Tribunal dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner. 19. From the above facts, we are at a loss to understand, how the Tribunal can come to such a misconceived conclusion. When the said appointment order No.215 itself speaks about the nature of the appointment of the petitioner, whatever the dispute or application or relief sought for by the petitioner, it should be viewed in the light of the said appointment order and the subsequent proceedings. 20. In service law, when a person changes his service on and off or his service is changed, be it Central or State or from department to department, any issue arises or is raised, that should be viewed in the light of the nature of appointment and service conditions of the same. Otherwise, there will always be a misconceived solution to any problem of the employee. In service Jurisprudence, we do not think that there can be any cause of action as in the case of civil disputes. 21. In the light of the above, we do not find anything to arrive at such a misconceived conclusion by the Tribunal. 22. For the reasons stated above, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, while setting aside the same, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for disposal on merits. No costs.