Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. A.S. Vijayaraghavan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners and the first respondent-party in person. 2. Even though the matter is listed for considering the question of continuance of stay, on consent of the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the party in person who is the main contesting respondent, being the applicant before the Tribunal, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. The question raised by the first respondent relates to seniority in the post of Radio Technician. There is no dispute that the first respondent had joined service on 29. 1989 whereas respondents 3, 4 and 5 above whom he is claiming seniority had joined on 3. 1990, 13. 1990 and 210. 1989 respectively. It appears that in the provisional seniority list, the present first respondent was shown junior to the present respondents 3, 4 and 5 on the basis that the other persons were found more meritorious in the selection process. The Tribunal has, however, held that the present first respondent who was the applicant before the Tribunal should be treated as senior as he had joined earlier than respondents 3, 4 and 5. The Department had placed reliance upon the instruction dated 11. 1992 in support of the contention that the seniority should be fixed on the basis of the merit in the selection process. However, the said memorandum itself makes it clear that the seniority matters after 11. 1992 would be determined by the order of merit and seniority matters prior to 11. 1992 would not be re-opened and seniority fixed as per the order of confirmation is to continue. 4. In the additional affidavit filed in court today, the writ petitioners have clearly stated that before 11. 1992, seniority was to be fixed on the basis of date of joining and not on the basis of merit. It is apparent from para 6 wherein it is stated that prior to 11. 1992, only the date on which the individual joined duty on being appointed was considered to fix seniority. In view of the above stand now indicated in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners themselves, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. 1992, only the date on which the individual joined duty on being appointed was considered to fix seniority. In view of the above stand now indicated in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners themselves, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. It appears that after the Tribunal had passed the direction for re-consideration of the question of seniority, in the light of the observation made by the Tribunal. The Department, before filing the present petition, issued an office memorandum on 5th March 2008 wherein it has been observed as follows:- "3. Considering the above mentioned observations, it is clear that the seniority fixed in respect of the applicant is in order. So far as the fixation of seniority of previous batch is concerned, the fixation of seniority on the basis of date of joining is legally not in order. However, any change now in that would disturb the spirit of the established principle of law." The said office memorandum is, obviously, contrary to the order passed by the Tribunal. Be that as it may now that the position relating to seniority has been clarified, it is expected that necessary steps should be taken by the Department to re-fix the seniority of the present first respondent below the second respondent and above the present respondents 3, 4 and 5. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further contended that the Original Application before the Tribunal itself was barred by limitation. However, it appears that such a point was never raised and at any rate, the specific order rejecting the representation was passed on 26th October 2005 and the Original Application was filed on 110. 2006, within a period of one year. 7. It is to be noted that the present respondents 3, 4 and 5, who had been served with notice during the pendency of the Original Application, had never contested the question of seniority before the Tribunal and after the order was passed by the Tribunal, those persons have also not chosen to challenge such order of the Tribunal. Since no specific policy decision was in issue and the matter was mainly the question of inter se seniority among the employees, we do not find that there was any justification for the Department to file a writ petition in matters which were essentially inter se dispute among the employees. 8. Since no specific policy decision was in issue and the matter was mainly the question of inter se seniority among the employees, we do not find that there was any justification for the Department to file a writ petition in matters which were essentially inter se dispute among the employees. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The direction with regard to fixation of seniority shall be complied within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We place on record our appreciation for the fair manner in which the matter has been submitted by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.