IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13757 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.722/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, DEPARTMENT OF POST, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES (HQ), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- D. SASIDHARAN, S/O. LATE P.S.DAMODARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, POSTMASTER (HSG-I),HEAD POST OFFICE CHERTHALA, RESIDING AT SASI VIHAR, CHERUVARANAM, VARANAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) FOR R1 SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA FOR R1 SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R1 SRI.K.V.JOY FOR R1 SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 13757/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.722/2003 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM DT. 20.8.2003. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY O THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.A.NO.722/2003 DT. 5.11.2003. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.A.722/2003 DATED 28.10.2005. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DT. 29.7.2005 IN OA NO.809/2002 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 17.11.1987 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. NO.9/11/55-RPS DT. 22.12.1959 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.20011/5/90 ESTT (D) DATED 4.11.1992 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 18.2.1997 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPT OF POSTS. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 14.3.1997 ISSUED TO SRI.P.V.SREEDHARAN NAMBEESAN. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 9.6.1997 ISSUED TO SRI.P.V.SREEDHARAN NAMBEESAN. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO.15522/2001 DT. 23.3.2005. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER O THE CAT, ERNAKULAM IN OA 1455/1995 DT. 22.11.1995. EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM IN OA 1113/2000 DT. 20.11.2000. EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CIRCLE GRADATION LIST AS ON 1.7.1987. RESPONDENT'S EXTS. EXT.R1(a) - PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.15522/2001 DATED 23.3.2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R1(b) - PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.25315/1998 DT. 31.3.2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R1(c) - PHOTO COPY OF THE MEMO NO.ST/03/OA 809/2002 DATED 18.9.06 OF THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, TRIVANDRUM. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 13757 OF 2006-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 28th January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.722/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondent herein was the applicant. The respondent approached the C.A.T., claiming that he should be given the benefit of retrospective promotion granted to the applicants in O.A.Nos.1092/1992 and 1292/1996. The applicant in the present O.A claimed that he is senior to the applicants in those O.As. So, it was contended that the benefits granted to the applicants in those O.As should be granted to him also. The writ petitioners resisted the O.A., contending, inter alia, that his claim is barred by limitation. But, we notice that the said point was not considered by the C.A.T in Ext.P4 final order. So, it must be presumed that the writ petitioners did not press that point before the C.A.T. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners mainly canvassed that the claim of the respondent was a stale claim and he is guilty of delay and WPC 13757/2006 2 laches. Since the said point is not seen seriously canvassed before the C.A.T., this Court is not justified in going into that contention. Regarding the merits of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent/applicant is entitled to get the benefit of retrospective promotion. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. nm/