Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs P.N.Alexander on 1 August, 2016
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar, Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/9TH CHAITHRA, 1939
OP (CAT).No. 99 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1123/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 01-08-2016
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS.:
--------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.110001.
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,
KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695101.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
PATHANAMTHITTA- 689645.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANTS.:
--------------------------------
P.N.ALEXANDER
S/O. S. NINAN, AGED 48 YEARS, SPM KOODAL P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA POSTAL DIVISION,
RESIDING AT PULICKAL HOUSE, KUNNAM,
VECHOOCHIRA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA- 686511.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-03-2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 99 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.1123/2012 DATED 6.12.2012 FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 15.5.2013 FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 18.7.2013 FILED BY THE
APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED
29.10.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED 10.9.2015
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.A.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.1123/2015 DATED 3.11.2015
OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(CAT).NO.207/2015 DATED
22.12.2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.NO.1123/2012 DATED 1.8.2016
OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
BENCH.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
&
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
==========================
O.P. (CAT). No.99 OF 2017
==========================
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
The petitioners, who were the respondents in O.A.No.1123 of 2012, filed the captioned original petition challenging the order dated 1.8.2016 passed thereon by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondent herein was the applicant therein. He moved the original application seeking quashment of Annexure- A1 and for a declaration to the effect that the service rendered by him in Army Postal Service on deputation basis, continuously without break should be reckoned for the purpose of granting MACP benefits and any provision in Annexure-A4 that prohibits reckoning of the said service as qualifying service as arbitrary and unconstitutional. O.P.(CAT).99/2017 2
2. The Tribunal, as per the impugned order, held that the service rendered by the applicant in APS on deputation is to be reckoned for the aforesaid purpose. It is aggrieved by the said order that the captioned original petition has been filed.
3. When this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Solicitor General furnished a copy of the judgment of this Court dated 9.2.2016 in O.P(CAT).No.33 of 2016. Evidently, the issue involved in that case as to whether the service rendered by the persons in the Reserve Trained Pool, on deputation basis, in APS could be reckoned for the purpose of granting MACP benefits was considered and decided therein. The said original petition was filed by the petitioners herein along with some other authorities against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.856/2012 whereby it was held that such service rendered by Reserve Trained Pool personnel, on deputation basis, should be reckoned for the purpose of granting MACP benefits. In O.P.(CAT).99/2017 3 other words, the issue was decided against the petitioners. The respondent herein was also working in the Reserve Trained Pool while being deputed to APS. He also seeks for the same relief and it was granted by the Tribunal by allowing the application. Since the issue is squarely covered against the petitioners under the judgment in O.P. (CAT).No.33 of 2016, this original petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, in the circumstances, sought for some time for complying with the directions of the Tribunal in the impugned order. We are inclined to grant two months time from today for complying with the directions in the impugned order.
Subject to the above, this original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
(JUDGE)
spc/
O.P.(CAT).99/2017 4
O.P.(CAT).99/2017 5
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September,2010
O.P.(CAT).99/2017 6