IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37710 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.570/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE SREEKARIYAM, TRIVANDRUM-695017. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE SREEKARIYAM, TRIVANDRUM-695017. 4. THE ASSISTANT FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE SREEKARIYAM, TRIVANDRUM-695017. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- DR. RAMESHCHANDRA RAY, S/O. RAMA CHANDRA BALIAR SINGH PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST, REGIONAL CENTRE OF CTCRI, BHUBANESWAR, RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 1074, JAGAMOHAN NAGAR, KHANDAGIRI.P.O., BHUBANESWAR-751030. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 37710 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 570/2009, dated 31.7.2009. The Tribunal, following its order in O.A. 280/2005 in the case of Dr. B. Sasi Kumar v. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, allowed the O.A. holding that the applicant is entitled to be granted four advance increments in terms of the Departmental circular. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal had taken a same view in O.A. 279/2005. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) 13969/2008 and this Court, after considering the matter, dismissed the writ petition. Thus, the decision of the Tribunal as far as this Court is concerned, has become final in view of the decision in W.P.(C) 13969/2008. As per the impugned order, the Tribunal has only followed the earlier order referred to above and directed the appellant herein to grant relief subject to the SLP 1179/2008. In the circumstances, we find no reason calling for to be interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. KNC/-