IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32981 of 2009(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA - REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE JOINT SECRETARY (CPV) & CHIEF
3. THE PASSPORT OFFICER,
Vs
1. K.ANIL KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. UDAYARAJ JANARDHANAN, EX-CASUAL LABOURER
For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
For Respondent :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :21/06/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.32981 OF 2009 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
The establishment challenges the decision in O.A.No.709 of
2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
Bench. The Tribunal decided that case on 10.8.2009. It was
held that the applicants were eligible for service benefits.
Dissatisfied with the above decision, the applicants approached
this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.25647 of 2009. This Court
directed the Assistant Solicitor General to file a statement as to
whether any SLP was pending against an earlier judgment of this
Court rendered in O.P.No.34447 of 2001, which is among the
papers in this file also. Two weeks time was granted. The
identity of an SLP was informed to the Bench. Of course, after
verification, it was noted that the said petition related to some
other matter. However, this Court noted that the establishment
WP(C).32981/09 2
had not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal. After
taking note of that situation, the applicants’ writ petition,
W.P.(C).No.25647 of 2009 was disposed of issuing certain
modifications. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the
decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.709 of 2008 stands merged in
the judgment dated 14.10.2009 issued by this Court in W.P.(C).
No.25647 of 2009 (Ext.R1(a)), rendered after hearing both sides.
Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this
writ petition at the instance of the establishment, in exercise of
the discretionary power vested with this Court under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, the writ petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
WP(C).32981/09 3