Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The present writ petitioners have filed O.A.Nos.728 to 733 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", challenging the order of reversion, dated 10. 2007, based upon the notice dated 29. 2007, issued by the present third respondent by which the applicants were reverted to the lower posts. 3. The applicant in O.A.No.728 of 2007 (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20001 of 2008) was initially appointed as a Machinist on 18. 1987 and subsequently promoted to the post of highly skilled grade on 4. 1994. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Chargeman Gr.II with effect from 2. 2006. The applicant in O.A.No.729 of 2007 (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20002 of 2008) was initially appointed as Fitter (Semi skilled grade) on 211. 1988 and promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade II on 16. 2001 and further promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade I with effect from 24. 2007. The applicant in O.A.No.730 of 2007 (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20003 of 2008) was appointed as Millwright (semi-skilled) on 17. 1989 and promoted to highly skilled grade on 4. 1994 and further promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade II on 16. 2001. Subsequently, he was reverted to the post of highly skilled (Millwright) with effect from 16. 2001 and reappointed as Chargeman Grade II on 2. 2006. The applicant in O.A.No.731 of 2007 (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20004 of 2008) was appointed as Fitter (semi-skilled grade) on 3. 1988 and promoted to the skilled grade on 211. 1991 and further promoted to the highly skilled grade on 13. 1995. He was further promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade II on 2. 2006. The applicant in O.A.No.732 of 2007 (Writ Petitioner in WP.No.20005 of 2008) was appointed as Fitter (semi-skilled) on 2. 1988 and promoted to the skilled grade on 30.5.1991 and to the post of Highly skilled grade on 26. 1994 and further promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade II on 16. 2001. The applicant in O.A.No.733 of 2007 was appointed as Examiner (skilled) on 30.1.1990 and thereafter promoted to the Highly skilled grade on 16. 1994. He was further promoted as Chargeman Grade II on 1. 2001 and to the post of Chargeman Grade II on 15. 2005. While the matters stood thus, the third respondent issued a notice dated 29. 2001. The applicant in O.A.No.733 of 2007 was appointed as Examiner (skilled) on 30.1.1990 and thereafter promoted to the Highly skilled grade on 16. 1994. He was further promoted as Chargeman Grade II on 1. 2001 and to the post of Chargeman Grade II on 15. 2005. While the matters stood thus, the third respondent issued a notice dated 29. 2007 seeking to revert these applicants / petitioners for the purpose of implementing the order of the Tribunal dated 5. 2007 in O.A.Nos.189 and 519 of 2006. Even before any reply had been given, subsequently, the reversion order dated 10. 2007 was issued, while respective Original Applications were pending. Therefore, the applicants filed Miscellaneous Applications to amend the prayer and to raise additional grounds challenging such subsequent orders of reversion. The respondent justified such orders by contending that in order to give effect to the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.472, 872 and 874 of 1996 as upheld by the High Court in W.P.NOs.6923 to 6925 of 1999, disposed of on 110. 2004, and the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.189 and 519 of 2006, disposed of by the Tribunal on 5. 2007, observing that such applicants in the later O.A.Nos.189 and 519 of 2006 were entitled to similar benefits as ordered in O.A.Nos.472, 872 and 874 of 1996 as confirmed by the High Court in W.P.Nos.6923 to 6925 of 1999. The Tribunal has repelled the contention of the present petitioners (Applicants before the Tribunal) by observing that the earlier view taken by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.472, 872 and 874 of 1996 having been confirmed by the High Court, the Department was required to refix the seniority and, on the basis of such revised seniority, it was necessary to issue orders of promotion to those who are found to be senior. The Tribunal, however, after observing thus, held that the impugned orders of reversion were illegal inasmuch as the Department, without waiting for the reply of the applicants, had reverted the applicants. Accordingly, the Original Applications were allowed to the extent indicated by further observing that it would be open to the Department to circulate a dovetailed seniority list and consider the objections and thereafter pass appropriate orders. This later portion of the order of the Tribunal is in question by the applicants themselves. 4. Accordingly, the Original Applications were allowed to the extent indicated by further observing that it would be open to the Department to circulate a dovetailed seniority list and consider the objections and thereafter pass appropriate orders. This later portion of the order of the Tribunal is in question by the applicants themselves. 4. In order to appreciate the contentions now raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to delve further and to examine the effect of the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.472, 872 and 874 of 1996, as confirmed by the High Court in W.P.Nos.6923 to 6925 of 1999. There is no dispute that several skilled and semi-skilled posts in different trades are filled up from among the qualified persons. So far as the persons recruited as Machinists are concerned, an order had been passed earlier by the Department redesignating such Machinists as Turners. Challenging such redesignation, O.A.Nos.930 and 1576 of 1993 had been filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 23. 1995 had allowed such applications. During pendency of such Original Applications, there was an order of interim stay of any promotion in the trades concerned to next higher grade and because of such stay order, no trade test has been held for certain trades such as Machinist, etc. The trade test for such Machinist, etc., could be held only after the disposal of those O.A.Nos.930 and 1576 of 1993 and the Machinists, who came out successful in the trade test, were promoted from the date of passing the trade test. It is to be noted that promotion in the higher trade takes place on the basis of the result in trade test depending upon the vacancies available. Since the promotions had been given with effect from the date on which the persons concerned had passed the trade test, such persons filed O.A.Nos.472, 872 and 874 of 1996 claiming that such applicants should be given promotion with effect from the date when the vacancies had arisen. While allowing such Original Applications, the Tribunal observed :- "We are of the view that simply because there is an interim order, the applicants cannot be denied the benefit of promotion which the applicants should have got at the appropriate time. It is seen that the applicants were promoted only in 1995. While allowing such Original Applications, the Tribunal observed :- "We are of the view that simply because there is an interim order, the applicants cannot be denied the benefit of promotion which the applicants should have got at the appropriate time. It is seen that the applicants were promoted only in 1995. Considering the facts and circumstances of these case, we are of the view that the applicant cannot be denied the promotion when the vacancies had arisen earlier. As such the impugned order is set aside and a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for promotion from the date on which the vacancies arose, subject to the condition that the applicants are qualified for promotion under the relevant rules. They should not be denied promotion because there we (sic) a stay given by this Tribunal. The above direction shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. O.A. is allowed as above." 5. When such direction of the Tribunal dated 2. 1999 was challenged by the Union of India by filing W.P.Nos.6923 to 6925 of 1999, a Division Bench of this Court, (to which one of us, namely, P.K. Misra, J, was a member), upheld the order of the Tribunal, subject to certain clarifications, which is extracted hereunder :- "7. If the contention of the present petitioners would be accepted, the present respondents would be at a disadvantage for being considered for further promotion, as such promotion would take place in the combined category, namely, the Machinists as well as the Turners and others in the feeder category as such respondents would be treated as juniors for no fault of theirs. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the trade test could not be held on account of the stay granted by the Tribunal for which neither the present petitioners nor the respondents can be blamed. However, if there will be a technical adherence of the strict rules, the present respondents would be at a disadvantage for no fault of theirs. Since an act of Court is not supposed to prejudice any person, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Tribunal. However, if there will be a technical adherence of the strict rules, the present respondents would be at a disadvantage for no fault of theirs. Since an act of Court is not supposed to prejudice any person, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Tribunal. However, we make it clear that in case the respondents are promoted with effect from any retrospective date, they shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits in terms of salary or arrears of salary for such period, but their promotion shall be considered only for the purpose of counting their seniority, calculation of pension, increment and other benefits. 7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the vacancies arose from 1994. If that be so, the question of ante-dating the promotion would be considered with effect from the dates on which the vacancies arose. 8. Since this order is passed under the peculiar facts and circumstances, it is obvious that it shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases." 6. In order to give effect to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, which was confirmed in W.P.Nos.6923 to 6925 of 1999, the authorities had to give notional promotion and seniority with retrospective effect. However, while giving notional promotion with retrospective effect and antedating their seniority, the authorities have indicated their intention that the other persons who had been promoted from other trades would be reverted. It has to be borne in mind that in the earlier Original Applications and the Writ Petitions, which arose out of such OAs, the promotion given to any of the present petitioners had not been specifically challenged. The only grievance of the concerned person at that stage was that because of the non-holding of the trade test, such persons could not be promoted to the skilled grade and consequently they could not get the promotion. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court had indicated that on account of such antedating of promotion or seniority, the persons who have already been promoted would be reverted. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court had indicated that on account of such antedating of promotion or seniority, the persons who have already been promoted would be reverted. The only consequence of the order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court was to the effect that the persons who were deprived of the promotion because of non-holding of the trade test on account of the said order should be given notional promotion and seniority. However, in the absence of any clear direction that the others, who were already promoted, should be reverted, it is not proper on the part of the Department to demote any of the persons who had already been promoted. To that extent, the grievance of the present petitioners can be mitigated by observing that on the ground of implementing the direction of the Tribunal as upheld by the High Court in W.P.Nos.6923 to 6925 of 1999, no other employee should be demoted or reverted. 7. In the impugned notice, the question of seniority has also been indicated. It is to be borne in mind that initially the employees are classified in different trades, but after a particular stage all of them can get promoted to a common post. So, the question of seniority assumes importance for the purpose of future promotion. The Department is therefore free to proceed with the question of refixation of seniority on the basis of the observations made in W.P.Nos.6923 to 6925 of 1999 and, if any of the present petitioners has any grievance, it would be open to such petitioner to make appropriate representation before the authorities. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the clarification that irrespective of the question of inter se seniority, there would not be any reversion of any of the incumbents from any of the posts. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.