IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE18H DAY OF FEBRUARY201429TH MAGHA, 1935 OP (CAT).No. 28 of 2014 (Z) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN OA.NO. 726 OF2011OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM --------------------- PETITIONERS / RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI-110 011.
2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, ARMY HEADQUARTES DHQ (PO), NEW DELHI-110011.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, SOUTHERSN COMMAND PUNE-411001. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI RESPONDENTS / APPLICANTS : ----------------------------------------------- 1. N. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED FROM GARRISON ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL) (I) KATARIBAGH, NAVAL BASE (PO), KOCHI-4. S/O. LATE P.R. DAMODARAN NAIR KOCHERIL HOUSE, KONDAD, RAMAPURAM P.O. (VIA) PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686591.
2. VARUGHESE G. DANIEL, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER II (RETIRED FROM GARRISON ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL) (I) KATARIBAGH, NAVAL BASE (PO) KOCHI-4. S/O. LATE GHEEVARUGHESE DANIEL NEDUMKANDATHIL, PENIYEL VILLA, MANJINIKKARA MATHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-686657. ...2/- OP (CAT).No. 28 of 2014 (Z) -2- 3. N. PURUSHOTHAMAN, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT (VOLUNTARILY RETIRED FROM SERVICE FROM GARRISON ENGINEER (ARMY) THIRUMALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM-6, S/O. LATE C.O. NANU, ROHINI MARROOR P.O., (VIA) ELAMANNOOR PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691524.
4. A.K. RAJAN OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED FROM COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER (AIR FORCE) HQSAC, IAF COMPLEX, AKKULAM, THURUVIKKAL.P.O. TRIVANDRUM-21, S/O. K.P. KORAN, 'USHAS' PADUVILAYIL, PATHIRIYAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670741.
5. BALAKRISHNAN CHAMMOTH, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED FROM GARRISON ENGINEER (NW) (I) KATARIBAGH, NAVAL BASE (PO), KOCHI-4. S/O. LATE C.C. NARAYANA THARAKAN THIRUVAZHIYODE, PALAKKAD-679514. BY ADV. SRI.R.SREERAJ THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1802-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- OP (CAT).No. 28 of 2014 (Z) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- EXT. P1. TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 726 OF2011ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT. P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA7262011. EXT. P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED279-2012 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 726 OF2011 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JJ.
.................................................................... OP(CAT) No.28 of 2014 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of February, 2014.
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the establishment revolves around the applicability of the decision of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.27 of 1999 to this case. Special leave petition that was carried from the decision of the Madras High Court affirming that order of the Tribunal was dismissed. According to the learned Central Government Counsel, Their Lordships had left open the questions of law arising for decision in that case. Be that as it may, thereafter, the said judgment of the Madras High Court and that order of the Madras Bench of the CAT were relied on by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench while it decided O.A.No.731 of 2005. That was affirmed by a Bench of this Court as per the judgment in WP(C) No.7206 of 2008 dated 10.03.2008. Special leave petition filed against that, has also been dismissed, however leaving open the aforenoted issues of law. OP(CAT)28/14 -2- We have gone through the decision of the Madras High Court and that of the Madras Bench of the CAT relied on by the Ernakulam Bench of the CAT. In our considered view, we are unable to disagree with the views stated therein, and therefore, we see no ground of jurisdictional infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal warranting interference with it in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This original petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE) jg