IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18834 of 2010(S)
1. K.LIESON,AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.KUTTINADAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(CONSTRUCTION)
3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,
4. THE SR.DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :28/06/2010
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
&
S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C)No.18834 of 2010-S
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010.
Judgment
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
The trump-card of the petitioner’s case in
challenge to the impugned order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal is Annexure-A8 in Ext.P3.
He tries to show that on 14.12.1989, the
Executive Engineer/Constn., Palayamkottai got
issued that communication to the petitioner
stating inter alia that adverting to the order
dated 7.9.1989 issued by the CAT, the
petitioner’s service particulars have been
advised to DRM(P)/TVC for inclusion of his name
in the seniority list of project labourers of
pre.1-1-81 list as per the letter referred to in
that Annexure-A8 and to consider the petitioner
for re-engagement according to his turn as and
WPC18834/10 -: 2 :-
when vacancy arises. The fact of the matter
remains that thereafter, the petitioner and
others filed O.A.1795/1991. The petitioner was
the 26th applicant in that case. Though the
matter was remitted by the Apex Court for re-
consideration by the Tribunal, it was ultimately
dismissed as per Annexure A10 order dated
30.4.1998. Ten years thereafter, the original
application from which this writ petition arises,
was filed. The Tribunal came to the conclusion
that the claims are nothing but repetitions of
the claims made earlier in O.A.1795/1991 and
subsequent original applications and also matters
before this Court. The petitioner appears to
raise controversy as to the identity of one
Sri.K.Mani referred to in the order in
O.A.192/2008, a portion of which is quoted in the
impugned order issued by the Tribunal in
O.A.18/2008. It is the case of the petitioner
that different judgments directly binding the
parties on facts have been issued by this Court
and also by the Tribunal and all such materials
WPC18834/10 -: 3 :-
have not been considered by the Tribunal.
Perusing the materials, we find that the
applicant(writ petitioner) had not placed all
those materials before the Tribunal. At the first
blush, we are not impressed by the argument that
the finality of the judgment in O.A.1795/1991 to
which the petitioner was a party, does not stare
at him. With this, the learned counsel for the
petitioner sought leave to withdraw this writ
petition with liberty to move the Tribunal
seeking review of the impugned order. We grant
such leave and dismiss this writ petition without
prejudice to contentions in any such review
application that may be filed before the
Tribunal.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
S.S.Satheesachandran,
Judge.
Sha/0207