Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAYOF JULY 2013 28TH ASHADHA, 1935 OP (CAT).No. 2065 of 2013 (Z) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA NO.600/2012 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 21 01-2013 ..... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SMT. PADMA T., W/O.THODHATHRI,AGED 5 YEARS, REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NO.61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110 001, RESIDING AT "J-13", ANDREWS GANG GATE EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-41. BY ADV. SRI.R.SREERAJ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. P.ULAGANATHAN, S/O.LATE V.V.PERUMAL,AGED 5 YEARS, REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, COCHIN-682 015 (ON DEPUTATION BASIS), PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO.144, ALEX STREET, PANNEER NAGAR, MOGAPPAIR, CHENNAI-600 037.
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH NO.61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ SMT.KALA T.GOPI R2 & R3 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP (CAT).No. 2065 of 2013 (Z) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 21 1-2013 IN OA.600/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION 600 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES THERETO. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 1251 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES THERETO. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYSTATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN O.A.600/2012. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYSTATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN (3RD RESPONDENT THEREIN) IN O.A.600/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN (3RD RESPONDENT THEREIN) IN O.A.600/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A-26011/03/2011- AT DATED 6 H MAY 201.ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSURE. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P-26012/29/2012- AT DATED 8 H NOVEMBER 201 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSURE. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------------ N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TOJUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
----------------------------------------------- O.P.(CAT) No. 2065 of 2013 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
The impugned order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal on an issue of seniority between the petitioner and the first respondent was necessitated on account of re-casting of the final combined seniority list of Section Officers/Court Officers and Private Secretaries in the Central Administrative Tribunal as on 1.11.1989 pursuant to the directions of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.337 of 2007- V.K.Bawa v. Union of India and others. The fact of the matter remains that neither the petitioner nor the first respondent was a party to that case. There was also no representative impleadment of the employees who would be affected by the verdict handed down by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in that case.
2. Be that as it may, having gone through the impugned O.P. (CAT) No.2065 /13 -2- order now issued by the Tribunal in the backdrop of the elaborate submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent, we see that the first respondent had succeeded, among other grounds, on the plea that the seniority list (Annexure A8 in Ext.P2 original application) had to go insofar as the contesting petitioner and the first respondent are concerned. The restoration of seniority as ordered by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with having regard to the fact that the seniority so enjoyed by the first respondent herein who succeeded before the Tribunal stood for quite a long time. Remember, the relevant date is 1.11.1989, as regards the fixation of seniority. If that were so, the establishment erred in law in disturbing the seniority position of the first respondent over the petitioner before us while it issued the revised final combined seniority list pursuant to the directions in V.K.Bawa's case; more particularly, without issuing a pre-decisional notice to the first respondent herein.
3. On to the practical aspects of the aspirations of the petitioner vis-a-vis the first respondent; we see that the first O.P. (CAT) No.2065 /13 -3- respondent is elder in age to the petitioner; he now works on deputation with the Cochin Shipyard and even if he was to march ahead on the strength of the seniority restored by the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner before us would still have her aspirations for a promotion in time. That will not in any manner be stultified by the effect of the directions issued by the Tribunal.
4. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we desist from interfering with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of the authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, more particularly because, we feel that ends of justice do not require such an exercise to be carried out. For the foregoing reasons, this original petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kvr/22-7