IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 22358 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.694/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN P.O. CHENNAI. 2. THE FINANCE ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,(WEST/PER),SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 3. THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL WORKSHOP ENGINEER, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI 600 023. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS SMT.A.RAJESWARI, SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT: ------------- SALOMA, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.BERTHOLOME JOSEPH, VILAYIL VEEDU, KANDOCHIRA, PERINAD P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 22358/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.9.02. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.12.04. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.5.06 IN OA 694/05 OF THE CAT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS, EXT.R1(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RRB/TVC/Cat 301 DATED 22.3.01 ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R1(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NO.RRB/TVC/301 DATED 225.4.01 ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R1(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ADVICE ISSUED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(d) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EPB/600/B. WALTER DATED 28.6.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.R1(e) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.1.2004 BEARING NO.P500/HQ/Pen/WST/PER ISSUED BY FA & CAO/MAS. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.22358 OF 2006-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 17th January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection. According to him, the writ petition is not maintainable. He pointed out that the 1st respondent in the O.A was the Union of India. The said respondent has not filed any writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is produced as Ext.P3 in this writ petition. Only other respondents in the O.A have chosen to challenge the said order. It means, as against the Union of India, Ext.P3 order has become final. The learned counsel also pointed out that the said defect in the writ petition was pointed out by the respondent in para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by her on 6.2.2007. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for time to implead the Union of India as supplementary petitioner. 3. We find considerable force in the preliminary objection raised by Wpc 22358/2006 2 the learned counsel for the respondent. As against the Union of India, the order in the O.A has become final. In the absence of any challenge by it against that order, it is bound to implement the order also. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the remaining respondents in the O.A need not be considered on merits. 4. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners cannot be allowed, in view of the delay in challenging Ext.P3 order by the Union of India. The said order is dated 26.5.2006. Now 21 months are over. After the filing of the counter affidavit also, about one year is over. Therefore, the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be allowed. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/