ORDER : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J 1. These writ petitions are filed by the Union of India (for brevity ‘UoI’) and private respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘private respondents’) challenging the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter ‘the tribunal’). 2. The issue involved in these writ petitions is similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14506/2022. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent Nos.1 to 12 in this petition (hereinafter ‘the applicants’) filed Original Application (‘OA’) before the tribunal for revision of the seniority list and for granting seniority on the basis of their initial date of engagement. The date of engagement and regularization of the applicants and the private respondents are not in dispute. The private respondents were regularized in the year 1992 whereas the applicants were regularized in the year 2000 to 2006. 4. In the first round of litigation before the tribunal in OA No.375/2009 the applicants partially succeeded and it was ordered that they be granted pay-scale 6500-10500 from the date on which juniors than the petitioner were given the said benefit. The prayer for issuance of directions to modify the seniority list of Production Assistant was not decided as only a provisional seniority list was prepared. In the present case, the prayer before the tribunal was that the applicants be put higher in seniority to the private respondents relying upon their initial date of engagement. Reliance was placed upon the scheme of the department dated 09.06.2022 and decision of the Madras High Court in B. Justin Immanuel & Ors. Vs. N. Suresh & Ors. reported in [2007 SCC ONLINE MADRAS 1530] 5. The tribunal directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for revision of the seniority list after considering the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of B. Justin Immanuel & Ors. (supra) and decision of the tribunal in OA No.375/2009. It was clarified that the applicants had already been granted benefit of higher pay scale and would not claim the higher pay scale due to change of seniority but shall be entitled to the consequential promotions on becoming eligible due to change of seniority. 6. (supra) and decision of the tribunal in OA No.375/2009. It was clarified that the applicants had already been granted benefit of higher pay scale and would not claim the higher pay scale due to change of seniority but shall be entitled to the consequential promotions on becoming eligible due to change of seniority. 6. Learned counsel for the UoI contends that the tribunal on one hand had noted that in the earlier litigation i.e. OA No.375/2009 the issue of seniority list was not decided and at the same time recorded that the acceptance of the seniority of the applicants is implicit in the earlier order of the tribunal. It is further argued that the seniority referred in the scheme dated 09.06.2022 is for the purpose determining seniority for regularization but not for inter se seniority which is based upon the date of regularization. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the issue of seniority has already been decided by the tribunal in OA No.375/2009, the respondents are delaying the revision of seniority by filing this petition inspite, of the fact that the earlier decision of the tribunal attained finality. 8. The tribunal directed the department to decide seniority taking into consideration the decision of the Madras High Court in B. Justin Immanuel & Ors. (supra) and decision of the tribunal in OA No.375/2009. The matter is to be considered by the department and at this stage there is no occasion to interfere in the impugned order. 9. The contention of counsel for the UoI that in the earlier round of litigation the issue of seniority was not decided yet the tribunal has recorded that acceptance of seniority of the applicants is implicit from the earlier order of the tribunal has a fallacy. It is undisputed fact that in earlier round the prayer for revising seniority was not considered by the tribunal as the seniority list prepared at that time was provisional. The applicants succeeded in getting high pay scale only on ground of their juniors having got it, as the tribunal considered that the revised pay scale was granted to the persons regularized in the year 2000 but revised pay scale was granted only to the persons who approached the tribunal or the Court whereas the policy should have been implemented uniformly to all similarly situated persons. The seniority determined in 2013 seniority list was neither before the tribunal nor was commented upon, rather the seniority list dated 02.11.2012 prepared at that time was provisional. 10. The writ petition is disposed of. 11. Needless to say that the parties aggrieved of the decision of the department of revision of seniority shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law.