Satya Brata Sinha, J. - (1.) All these writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) These writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 27.3.1998 passed by a Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby and whereunder the applications filed by the petitioners herein were dismissed.
(3.) The short question which had arisen for consideration was as to whether the petitioners herein had preferred any appeal so as to obtain the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. R. Redappa and another, 1993(4) SCC 269 : 1994(1) SCT 119 (SC) . It appears that the petitioners had filed writ applications before this Court. The said writ petitions were dismissed. Appeal was taken thereagainst wherein an order was passed to prefer appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioners allegedly had preferred appeals, but as no relief had been granted, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 3.1.1995 dismissed the said applications stating : "We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the parties. We have also carefully gone through the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Redappa, 1993(4) SCC 269 (supra). We are of the view that on carefully perusing the above judgment, we are unable to find that the cases of the applicants come within any of the five types of cases, which have been considered by the Supreme Court and the relief has been granted in respect of those cases only except the last (sic) employees against those who did not approach the court the Government has taken the decision to re-employ them. We are of the considered view what the order of removal passed against the applicant had attained finality in view of the facts disclosed in each of the cases and we are, therefore, unable to grant the applicants relief of re- instatement in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Redappa's case (supra).";