IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28069 of 2010(S) --------------------------------------- OA.403/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.T.CHACKO, INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN- 682 018. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CENTRAL BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682 018. 3. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 5. P.K.PRAN, S/O.K.A.KRISHNAN, INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN- 682 018. 6. S.K.CHITRA, W/O.A.KANNAN, INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682 018. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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/-