JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. 1. The private respondents no. 7 to 14 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in OA 607 of 2006 with the following reliefs : “8.1 The impugned orders dated 4/5.08.2004, 23.11.2004 and 17.08.2006 as contained in Annexures-A-1, A-1/1 and A-2 respectively be quashed and set aside. 8.2 The applicants may also be given the benefits of promotion under restructuring to the post of OS-II and put above the private respondents. 8.3 Any other consequential reliefs be awarded in favour of the applicants to which they are found entitled to. 8.4 Any other relief or reliefs may be granted to the applicants for which they are found entitled to 8.5 Cost of litigation may be given to the applicants.” 2. Since the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the OA and granted the relief to the applicants vide order dated 25th of February, 2013, the petitioners, who were private respondents in the OA, have filed the writ application challenging the decision of the Tribunal. 3. As per the pleadings emerging from the records of the case, the applicants before the Tribunal pleaded that they were recruited by the Railway Recruitment Board on clerical cadre between 1992 and 1997 and were working in different zones of Railways. When the zones were restructured and a new zone was created as East Central Railway, Hajipur options were asked for and in exercise of such option for administrative reasons transfers were effected. The East Central Railway, Hajipur started functioning from 01.10.2002 and the cadre was closed on 31.10.2003. All was well till the petitioners of the present writ application, who also arrived in the said zone from different cadres, subsequently became beneficiary of grant of promotion as Head Clerks or thereafter. The promotion was granted to the petitioners making them senior to the private respondents, despite not being borne on the cadre. This is how the litigation started. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal has taken note of the history of the birth of the three petitioners in service by tracing the history of their service in the impugned order. The promotion was granted to the petitioners making them senior to the private respondents, despite not being borne on the cadre. This is how the litigation started. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal has taken note of the history of the birth of the three petitioners in service by tracing the history of their service in the impugned order. After considering the fact that at-least some of these petitioners came to be accommodated on the post of Clerk by virtue of restructuring to save their employment and job, it also took note of the fact that these petitioners were not borne in the cadre when the cadre was closed on 01.11.2003. If by a subsequent decision of the respondent railway authorities they are shown over and above the head of the private respondents then naturally the law will kick in and in this regard the Tribunal has gone by the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Nani Sha Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh reported in AIR 2007 SC 2356 . The relevant paragraph being paragraph 14, which is reproduced hereinbelow : “14. Lastly, the High Court has specifically rejected the claim of the appellants on another ground, namely, that the appellants were not borne in the cadre of the ACF on the date from which they have been given the seniority. We are in complete agreement with the High Court, particularly in view of the decision of this Court reported in State of Bihar and Others vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath [(1991) Supp. 1 SCC 334] which decision was reiterated in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Bateshwar Sharma [(1997) SCC 424]. We do not want to burden this judgment with further reported decisions. However, the same view has been taken in another reported decision of this Court in Uttranchal Forest Rangers' Asson. (Direct Recruit) and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [JT 2006 (12) SCC 513] where in paragraph 18 this Court has taken a view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to be adversely affecting those who were appointed validly in the meantime. 5. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [JT 2006 (12) SCC 513] where in paragraph 18 this Court has taken a view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to be adversely affecting those who were appointed validly in the meantime. 5. The law being what it is, and the facts as such, not seriously in dispute, therefore, the Tribunal has reached a correct decision that no body can be given the benefit of seniority from a prior date i.e. even prior to the person being borne in the cadre. 6. The accepted position is that none of these petitioners were borne in the cadre prior to the private respondents in the clerical grade, and, in fact, these persons have been accommodated in the clerical grade subsequently by virtue of a restructuring and that cannot beget them the benefit of seniority over and above the substantively appointed clerks by direct recruitment which has already been noticed in the earlier part of the order. 7. Since the principle applied by the Tribunal in Nani Sha (supra) is the correct interpretation of law, therefore, the Tribunal has committed no error by allowing the OA again and quashing the orders of promotion which came to be granted vide orders dated 4/5.08.2004, 23.11.2004 and 17.08.2006. 8. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.