- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who moved O.A. before the "Central Administrative Tribunal , Patna Bench, Patna as O.A. No. 51/1996, mislead the Tribunal and obtained the impugned order and in fact the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were granted full relief voluntarily by the employer and order was passed and communicated to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of that order which is dated 04.11.1996 (Annexure -6). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the order dated 04.11.1996 was not placed before the Tribunal even at the time of deciding the O.A. on 25.01.2001, therefore, after partly allowing the O.A. of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal directed the writ petitioner to consider the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for giving promotion retrospectively with effect from the date of promotion given to their juniors and they shall also be paid all consequential and financial benefits.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that they have preferred writ petition only to show that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by misleading the Tribunal obtained the order even after getting full relief from the writ petitioner.;