JUDGEMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.8.2003 (Annexure-1), passed by the Central Administrative tribunal, Patna Bench, in O. A. no.280 of 1998 (Kapildeo Sharma versus The Union of India and Anr.), whereby the original application preferred by respondent no.1 herein has been allowed, the order dated 21.5.1997 (Annexure-6) has been set aside, and the privilege of respondent no.1 to avail Class-I pass has been restored. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Respondent no.1 herein was appointed as a Carpenter Grade-I in the pay-scale of Rs.380-560/- plus Special Pay @ 15 % on basic pay, on 20.4.1953. He superannuated from the services of the Indian Railways on 30.4.1986. In view of the provisions of the railway Servants Pass Rules 1986, he was given Class-I pass which he could avail for his whole life. The petitioner was then visited with the order dated 21.5.1997 (Annexure-6), whereby his entitlement to Class-I pass was withdrawn, and he was instead given the benefit of Class-II pass. This order was passed on the footing that the Special Pay @ 15 % could not have been taken into account to determine the entitlement of respondent no.1. In other words, the authorities took the stand that the eligibility for class-I pass has to be determined on the basis of the basic pay-scale at the time of superannuation, and without taking into account the Special Pay. Respondent no.1 challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid O. A. no.280 of 1998, which has been allowed by the order dated 19.8.2003, wherein it has been held that eligibility of the retired employee has to be determined after taking into account the Special Pay. If it is so computed, then respondent no.1 is admittedly entitled to the benefit of Class-I pass. 3. In view of the discussion in the order of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken a possible view. Furthermore, the arrangement of a Class-I pass in favour of respondent no.1 continued for over one decade, whereafter it was terminated. Respondent no.1 is, as of now, 82 years of age. In the totality of the circumstances, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Tribunal. 4. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Furthermore, the arrangement of a Class-I pass in favour of respondent no.1 continued for over one decade, whereafter it was terminated. Respondent no.1 is, as of now, 82 years of age. In the totality of the circumstances, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Tribunal. 4. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. The order of the tribunal dated 19.8.2003, passed in O. A. no.280 of 1998 is hereby upheld. We, however, make it clear that respondent no.1 shall not be entitled to any compensation or the like for the period he was deprived of the benefit of Class-I pass.