Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. V.G. Sureshkumar, learned Standing Counsel representing for the Railways, Ms. Fidelia, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr. A.Thirumurthy, learned counsel for the second respondent and Ms. J. Vatchala, learned counsel for the third respondent and have perused the records. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, CAT] dated 14. 2004 in O.A. No. 671 of 2003, the present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India represented by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railways. The second respondent, who was a Goods Driver/ Chief Crew Controller at Thiruvotriyur Railway Station, filed O.A. No. 671 of 2003 before the CAT to set aside the order of the petitioners dated 07. 2003 and 17. 2003 as well as notice dated 17. 2003 and also to include the name of the second respondent in the alert notice and to promote him to the post of Passenger driver/ Motor Man. He also made the respondents 3 to 7 as party respondents before the CAT. The CAT, by its order dated 14. 2004, allowed the Original Application filed by the second respondent holding that the period of training for non-gazetted staff was initially fixed for 50 weeks. Though the training period was reduced to 39 weeks from the year 1998 for various administrative reasons, that by itself will not reduce the right to cut seniority and increment and any employees seniority and increment will count only after the completion of 50 weeks. Therefore, the finding of the CAT was that the curtailment of the training period was only to suit the local conditions and can have no bearing on the seniority and increment. Therefore, in the case of respondents 3 to 7, the period of training was reduced from 50 to 27 weeks but only on that ground, the respondents 3 to 7 are not entitled to claim seniority and increment from the date of completion of 27 weeks training. The CAT also found that such an interpretation will affect the statutory provision and also the case of the persons like the second respondent. Therefore, the CAT set aside the orders dated 07. 2003 and 17. 2003 and allowed the Original Application filed by the second respondent. 3. The CAT also found that such an interpretation will affect the statutory provision and also the case of the persons like the second respondent. Therefore, the CAT set aside the orders dated 07. 2003 and 17. 2003 and allowed the Original Application filed by the second respondent. 3. In fact, it is seen that the second respondent was promoted as a regular Goods Driver on 08.02.2001 and his seniority in the post of Goods Driver was fixed as Serial No. 127 vide letter of the petitioner dated 14. 2003. Admittedly, the respondents 3 to 7 were juniors and when the petitioner was waiting for training and the alert notice, his juniors, viz., respondents 3 to 7, were sent. In the seniority list dated 14. 2003, the respondents 3 to 7 were having position in Serial Nos. 147 to 151. But consequent on the revised seniority list, which resulted in the respondents 3 to 7 having undue advantage by the impugned orders, the CAT correctly found that the reduction of the training period will not affect the benefit of seniority and increment and such an order passed by the Railways will be violative of the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 4. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the CAT. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Since the time fixed by the CAT to promote the second respondent as Passenger Driver / Motor Man had expired, we extend the time by eight more weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to comply with the order dated 14. 2004 passed by the CAT in O.A. No. 671 of 2003. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.