IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4838 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------- OA.836/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ P.OMANA AMMA, W/O.LATE V.APPU KURUP (PRE-1986 COMBINED SERVICES PENSIONER) PUTHAN PURAYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHAMPAD, VIA TELLICHERRY CANNANORE DIST.KERALA 670 694.(REP.BY P/A HOLDER P.A.SADASIVAN, S/O.LATE V.APPU KURUP R/AT PUTHAN PURAYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHAMPAD, VIA TELLICHERRY -DO-. BY ADV. P.OMANA AMMA (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, CHENNAI CITY CENTRAL DIVISION, CHENNAI 600 017. 2. DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL) TAMILNADU POSTAL CIRCLE, CHENNAI-600 008. 3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, TAMILNADU POSTAL CIRCLE, CHENNAI 600 002. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL (POSTS), DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 100 001. 5. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 003. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, CGC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 4838 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 11th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner, through her Power of Attorney holder, who is none other than her son, has filed this writ petition, challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.836/2003, Ext.P7 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.28913/2007 and Ext.P8 order of this Court in R.P.No.1050/2007 against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.28913/2007. The writ petition to quash an order or judgment of the High Court is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenge against Ext.P6, which was rendered on 16.10.2003 is highly belated. The petitioner filed O.A.No.834/2006, seeking the very same reliefs sought in O.A.No.836/2003. Challenging the order in O.A.No.834/2006, W.P.(C) No.28913/2007 was filed. The said writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P7 judgment and the review attempted against it was dismissed by Ext.P8 order. For explaining the delay in challenging the WPC 4838/2008 2 order of the C.A.T., the petitioner submits, she was unaware of the principles of res judicata and limitation. Therefore, she prays, the writ petition may be entertained. 2. Since the relief sought in Ext.P6 was the very same relief sought in O.A.No.834/2006 and the latter O.A was dismissed and it was affirmed by this Court also, the present challenge to the judgment in the earlier O.A., is plainly untenable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/