JUDGEMENT S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.5.2003 (Annexure-1) as well as the order dated 5.4.2005 (Annexure-1/A), passed in O.A. No. 458 of 2001 and CCPA No. 115 of 2001 respectively, both passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The applicant (respondent no. 2 herein) claims to have worked on casual, daily-rated basis with the All India Radio (for short AIR), Bhagalpur, for the following days: Year Number of Days Designation 1988 184 Casual Typist 1989 107 Do 1991 35 Do 1989 49 Production Assistant 1990 55 Do 1991__________55______________Do 3. AIR formulated a scheme for regu- larization of its casual artists, vide office memorandum dated 21.12.1994, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow: "This Scheme would be applicable to all those casual artists who were engaged on casual/assignment basis as Production Assistants and General Assistants upto 31.12.1991 and were on the rolls of All India Radio though, they may not be in service now will be eligible for consideration but those who are engaged on casual/assignment basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible on consideration. 2. Only those casual artists who have been engaged as Production Assistants and General Assistants for an aggregate period of 72 days in a year (Calendar year) will be eligible for regu- larization. The broken period in between the engagement and disengagement will be ignored for the purpose. The number of days is to be computed on the basis of actual working days in the muster rolls or attendance sheets or Or. Sheets." 4. The applicant staked his claim for regularization. However, in view of the.denial of the benefit ot regularization, he preferred 0:A. No. 55 of 1996, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by order dated 2.9.1998 (Annexure-2) with the direction to the AIR to consider the applicants representation on merits. The same was considered and rejected leading to the aforesaid O.A. No. 458 of 2001, which was substantially allowed by the said order dated 6.5.2003, and the AIR was directed to re-consider the case of the applicant for regularization in view of the terms of the scheme and the observations made in the order. 5. The same was considered and rejected leading to the aforesaid O.A. No. 458 of 2001, which was substantially allowed by the said order dated 6.5.2003, and the AIR was directed to re-consider the case of the applicant for regularization in view of the terms of the scheme and the observations made in the order. 5. The authorities considered the applicants case and rejected the claim by a reasoned order dated 9.9.2003 (Annexure-5), leading to the contempt application which has substantially been allowed by the aforesaid order dated 5.4.2005, passed in CCPA No.115 of 2004 (Annexure-1/A). The Tribunal, however, observed that it was not a case of deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the Tribunal, but was rather a case of misconception about the provision in law, and the observations made by the Tribunal in its aforesaid order dated 6.5.2003. The Tribunal observed as follows in paragraph 12 of the order and directed the AIR to reconsider the case of the applicant (respondent no. 2 herein), in accordance with law and the observations made by the Tribunal in the order on the original application. Paragraph 12 of the order dated 6.5.2003 reads as under: "In view of the overall discussions and analysis of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders as at (Annexure-A/5 dated 2.12.1995. Annexure-A/6 dated 7.12.1999 & A/6(a) dated 26.4.2000 are not sustainable, being passed contrary to the material on record, and the same are hereby quashed and set aside with directions to the concerned authorities to re-consider the case of the applicant for regularization as General Assistants/ Clerk Grade-ll/LDC in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the respondents are at liberty to verify the factual position with regard to various documents, as referred to hereinabove, before passing any order in the matter." 6. Aggrieved by the order, the authorities have preferred this writ petition and raise a grievance before this Court that the learned Tribunal has misinterpreted the scope and the scheme. Before an order for regularization or consideration for that purpose is passed, the scope and the sweep of the scheme has to be appreciated. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. Aggrieved by the order, the authorities have preferred this writ petition and raise a grievance before this Court that the learned Tribunal has misinterpreted the scope and the scheme. Before an order for regularization or consideration for that purpose is passed, the scope and the sweep of the scheme has to be appreciated. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the applicant is working with the AIR since 1988, on a casual daily-rated basis and on recurring basis, and has by now become overage in service. He next submits that it is an omnibus scheme which takes within its sweep all employees of Class-Ill and naturally, therefore, includes a Typist also. It is further submitted that this aspect of the matter was considered by the Tribunal while disposing of O.A. No. 458 of 2001, which has attained finality. 8. The issue is not free from difficulties. We, however, take the view that we have taken for the reasons assigned hereinafter. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is right in his submission that the Tribunals order dated 6.5.2003 was not challenged before the superior authority in accordance with law and has, therefore, attained finality. Its observation, therefore, binds all concerned. In an attempt to read the terms of the order in a way other than what it actually seems to suggest would be impermissible at this belated stage. The same would be binding on all concerned even if, on a dispassionate view of the same today, is found to be seemingly erroneous. It is in this context that we remind ourselves of the very valid observations made by the Tribunals in its order dated 5.4.2005, paragraph 7 of which is reproduced hereinbelow: "In OA 458 of 2001, this question squarely had come up for consideration of this Tribunal as to whether or not the applicant was covered under the aforesaid Scheme for regularization. Discussing materials, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that the case of the applicant was within the purview of the Scheme. If the respondents were of the opinion that the findings were misplaced they were supposed to take some action in that regard like filing of review application or going to appropriate forum against that order. Discussing materials, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that the case of the applicant was within the purview of the Scheme. If the respondents were of the opinion that the findings were misplaced they were supposed to take some action in that regard like filing of review application or going to appropriate forum against that order. That not having been done, the findings of this Tribunal were binding upon the respondents, The respondents, instead, have recorded order as if they were sitting in appeal against the findings of this Tribunal, holding contrary to that was held by this Tribunal. This is not permissible. If an order of Court/Tribunal is considered to be erroneous, legal remedies are available to overcome that. No legal remedies having been resorted to, it cannot be claimed that the findings of the Court/Tribunal were not correct. Then, in that particular case, the respondents were bound to act in accordance with the finding of this Tribunal." 9. This takes us on to the question of the scope and the intent of the scheme, the relevant portion of which has already been reproduced hereinabove. The scheme is a letter dated 21.12.1994, which states that the scheme is for regularization of all casual artists against the vacant posts of Clerk Grade-ll. It is a possible situation that the cadre of Clerk Grade-ll may be filled up from different streams including Typists. However, the present scheme appears to be confined to those who have worked as Casual Artists, may be as Production Assistants and General Assistants. In other words, Casual Artist appears to us to be the genus, and the Production Assistant and General Production Assistant appear to us to be species. In other words, those of the Production Assistants and General Assistants who have worked as Artists, namely, who have participated in the actual programme of AIR, would be Casual Artists, and would be within the sweep of the scheme. We do not agree with the contention advanced by respondent no. 2 that the Casual Artist is an omnibus expression which includes a Typist. The confusion perhaps has arisen because of use of the expression Assistant suffixed to "Production Assistants and General Assistants". We are, therefore, of the view that the scheme is confined to those who have worked as Artists, namely, who have participated in the programmes aired by the AIR. The confusion perhaps has arisen because of use of the expression Assistant suffixed to "Production Assistants and General Assistants". We are, therefore, of the view that the scheme is confined to those who have worked as Artists, namely, who have participated in the programmes aired by the AIR. Including a Typist within its sweep, to our mind, will be doing violence to the language of the scheme. 10. We must consider another aspect of the matter. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, as well as the learned Tribunal, are perfectly right in their view that the authorities cannot sit in judgment over the judgment of a Court. In case they have a grievance with an order of the Court, they can take steps to have the same set aside or modified by the court of superior and competent jurisdiction. We have in the present case no manner of doubt that the order dated 6.5.2003 of the learned Tribunal not having been challenged, has attained finality. This, however, does not conclude the matter. 11. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we are clearly of the view that the question whether or not a Typist is included within the sweep of the scheme, and whether or not is covered by the expression Artist, was neither specifically raised nor specifically answered. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal should be confined to all that is clearly stated therein. We are in this context reminded of the classic enunciation of law in Quinn vs. Leathern, 1901 A.C. 495, by the House of Lords that a judgment should be taken to be an authority for what actually it lays down specifically, and not what logically seems to follow. The following observations at page 506 of the report is the statement of law by Earl of Halsbury, L.C. "There are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expression which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all." The same has been consistently followed by the Courts in India. Some of the cases of our Courts are as follows: 1. AIR 1968 SC 647 (State of Orissa vs. Sudhanshu Shekhar Mishra & Ors.). 2. AIR 1987 SC 1073 (Ambica Quarry Works etc. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors.). 3. (2009)5 SCC 313 (Bank of India & Anr. vs. K. Mohandas & Ors.). 4. (2009)8 SCC 483 [: 2009(4) PLJR (SC)152] (Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha). 12. After the Tribunal passed the order dated 6.5.2003, the authorities disposed of the applicants representation by order dated 9.9.2003, wherein they clearly stated that the applicant is not covered by the terms of the scheme for the reasons that he had worked as a Typist and, therefore, not qualified for consideration for regularization as an Artist. We entirely agree with the conclusion of the authorities, and are equally of the view that this conclusion is not inconsistent with anyone of the findings of the earned Tribunal on the original application. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in disposing of the contempt application in the manner it has done, namely, by issuing a fresh direction to the authorities to reconsider the applicants case. 13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 5.4.2005 (Annexure-1/A), passed by the Tribunal in CCPA No. 115 of 2004 is hereby set aside.