Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-The petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 2nd August, 2004 by which the original application filed by the respondent Prem Prakash alongwith another original application filed by one Madhu Sudan Sharma has sought a direction from the Tribunal that they may be given promotion by way of upgradation in terms of restructuring scheme dated 27.1.1993 with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 3.1993 restoring the seniority at its original place as per para 5 of the order dated 29.1999. 2. The Tribunal following its decision in earlier original Application No. 252 of 1994 had granted the relief claimed by the respondent-applicants. It is not in dispute before us that the decision in original Application No. 252 of 1994 had not been challenged and has been accepted by the Railways. The applicants before the Tribunal had also moved a misc. application for condoning the delay in approaching the Tribunal. Since, the Tribunal found that the relief was already covered by the earlier Judgment of the Tribunal, which has not been challenged, has allowed the applications and has also observed that in view of the order passed in original applications both the misc. applications stand disposed of accordingly. 3. The contention raised before us is that no order having been passed in the misc. application, the Tribunal could not have allowed the application by following the its earlier decision. 4. We find that the disposal of the misc. application in terms of the order passed in original application by the Tribunal clearly amounts to condoning the delay. Moreover the Tribunal has merely accepted the claim of the respondents to put them in parity with other co-employees in terms of the benefits under the Cadre restructuring Scheme as per the directions of the Tribunal, which has been accepted by the petitioners. 5. In view of the aforesaid, there is no substantial failure of justice. Consequently, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition only for the purpose of examining the sufficiency of the cause for condoning the delay. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.