IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13884 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY STAFF UNION (REGISTRATION NO.01-24/1991), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN NEW MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 016. 2. SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES & TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 4. S. SASIKUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI FOR R2 & 3 SRI.P.S.MURALI FOR R4 G.P.SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13884 of 2007(C) PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ENDORSEMENT IN THE SERVICE BOOK OF R4 EXT.P2: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNION TO R2 DTD. 18.4.2007 EXT.P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNION TO R2 DTD. 28.2.2007 EXT.P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNION TO R1 DTD.27.6.2006 RESPONDENTS EXTS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF NOTICE OF AGITATION EXT.R4(B): COPY OF NEWS ITEM IN DESABHIMANI DAILY /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13884 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an association of employees of the 2nd respondent Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology. They are aggrieved by certain service benefits given to the 4th respondent. Their contention is that certain past service of the 4th respondent in another organisation has been erroneously reckoned as qualifying service for granting service benefits to the 2nd respondent. They also contend that the date of birth of the 4th respondent has been allowed to be corrected belatedly by surreptitious method. 2. I have heard the parties. The petitioner is an association. None of the reliefs prayed for is personal to the association. No employee aggrieved by the service benefits granted to the 4th respondent is before me challenging the same on the ground that it would affect his service prospects. Therefore, I am of opinion that the petitioner does not have locus standi to file this writ petition challenging the benefits given to W.P.(C)No.13884/07 2 the 4th respondent. The writ petition is dismissed on that ground. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.13884/07 3