Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the CAT) in E.P.(Dy.No.2685 of 2003) in O.A.No.437 of 2001, dated 19. 2003, quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to implement the order passed by the CAT in O.A.No.437 of 2001, dated 4. 2002 by fixing a time limit and to revise the pay of the petitioner as Rs.950-1500 (Revised Pay Scale Rs.3050-4590) from his initial appointment and to disburse the arrears from 8. 1989 onwards based on the judgment passed by the CAT, Guawhati Bench in O.A.No.158 of 1994, dated 110. 1995 as claimed in the applicants representation dated 5. 1999. 2. The petitioner, a Tailor in the Ordnance Depot, Chennai, preferred Original Application No.437 of 2001 before the CAT, Madras Bench, to quash the order dated 23. 2001 passed by the second respondent. Further prayer was made by the petitioner before the CAT to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the post of Skilled Tailor in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 (Revised Pay Scale of Rs.3050-4500) from the date of his appointment, i.e. on 8. 1989 and to pay the arrears from 8. 1989. 3. The CAT, Madras Bench, by order dated 4. 2002 in O.A.No.437 of 2001, while setting aside the order of the second respondent herein, dated 23. 2001, directed the respondents 1 and 2 herein, to revise the pay scale of the writ petitioner (applicant before the CAT) as Rs.950-1500, with effect from the date of his appointment, i.e. from 8. 1989 and to grant him all the arrears from 8. 1989 taking into consideration the revision of pay scales from time to time. 4. As the aforesaid order dated 4. 2002 passed by the CAT was not given effect to, the petitioner herein, filed an application before the CAT, which was registered as Dy.No.2685 of 2003 (in O.A.No.437 of 2001) and by the impugned order dated 19. 2003, the CAT rejected Dy.No.2685 of 2003, on the ground that it was filed only for execution of the CATs order dated 4. 2002 in O.A.No.437 of 2001, after a lapse of one year and therefore, it was hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. 2003, the CAT rejected Dy.No.2685 of 2003, on the ground that it was filed only for execution of the CATs order dated 4. 2002 in O.A.No.437 of 2001, after a lapse of one year and therefore, it was hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 6. It is not in dispute that the order dated 4. 2002 passed by the CAT in O.A.No.437 of 2001, has reached finality, as the same has not been set aside by any superior Court and hence, the said order dated 4. 2002 is binding on the parties. 7. So far as the limitation is concerned, there is a provision of limitation only for filing the Original Application before the CAT. Against the order of rejection passed by the second respondent on 23. 2001, the petitioner had preferred O.A.No.437 of 2001 well within the time and the said case in O.A.No.437 of 2001 was allowed by the CAT in favour of the petitioner. The subsequent petition registered as Dy.No.2685 of 2003, having filed only for implementation of the earlier order dated 4. 2002 in O.A.No.437 of 2001, there is no occasion for the CAT to refuse to grant such relief as was sought for in Dy.No.2685 of 2003, on the ground of limitation. In fact, no limitation period has been prescribed for compliance of the CATs order. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated 19. 2003 passed by the CAT, Madras Bench in Dy.No.2685 of 2003 in Original Application No.437 of 2001 and we direct respondents 1 and 2 to comply with the CATs order dated 4. 2002 passed in O.A.No.437 of 2001, within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner herein, may bring the same to the notice of this Court for taking appropriate action against the concerned respondent(s)/Officer. 9. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the Writ Petition is allowed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.