High Court Kerala High Court

P.T.Chacko vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & … on 9 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.T.Chacko vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & … on 9 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28069 of 2010(S)


1. P.T.CHACKO, INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &

3. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE &

4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

5. P.K.PRAN, S/O.K.A.KRISHNAN,

6. S.K.CHITRA, W/O.A.KANNAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :09/09/2010

 O R D E R
      C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            W.P.(C).No.28069 of 2010
                            ------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010.

                                       J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing

Counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner seeks regularisation with retrospective effect

as L.D.Clerk on the ground that he was appointed in the cadre of

L.D.Clerk on ad-hoc basis earlier. Retrospective claim was with

effect from 1981 onwards whereas regularisation was in 1992.

However, CAT found that the claim was decided by them along

with claim of others in an earlier round of O.A filed by the very

same petitioner along with others. So much so, the Tribunal

dismissed the case as not maintainable and by applying the

principle of res judicata.

3. Before us, counsel for the petitioner contended that

the Government is considering the claim of the petitioner and

others favourably and therefore a direction may by issued by this

Court to consider his case. He has also pointed out that Supreme

Court judgments later rendered are in their favour. Though CAT

W.P.(C).No.28069 of 2010

::2::

declined to entertain the application on account of res judicata

the same will not stand in the way of Government considering the

claim based on the Supreme Court judgments or otherwise.

We dismiss the writ petition, but with the above

observation.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
Judge.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.

bkn/-