IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16334 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.392/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE GENERAL MANGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN.P.O., CHENNAI-3. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PESONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 3. THE SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL(POWER), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, GENERAL, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT: --------------- K.J.BABU, S/O. K.A.JOSEPH, WORKING AS PAINTER GRADE-1,OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL(POWER), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. RESIDING AT GRACE VILLA, THOMAS NAGAR, KAKKANI(P.0.),KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD-691009. ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 16334 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.392/2008 filed this Writ Petition, challenging Ext.P7 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The point that arose for decision in that case was whether the post of Painter held by the applicant was an ex-cadre post in the Electrical Department or not. According to the writ petitioners, it was an ex-cadre post and the parent cadre of the applicant was Technician Grade-II. The Tribunal referring to an award of the labour court, which was affirmed by this Court also, held in favour of the applicant and he was allowed to continue in the post of Painter. We are told that he has only about 3 years service left. The petitioners in the Writ Petition submitted that in view of the earlier binding decisions, though they may not be able to successfully canvass that the post held by the respondent/applicant is an ex-cadre post, in fact, it was only an ex-cadre post and this decision may not bind them in future. On this point, we heard the learned counsel for the respondent also. W.P.(C) No.16443/2009 2 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, we order that Ext.P7 order of the C.A.T. in favour of the respondent/applicant will apply to him only. If, in future, any dispute arises between the writ petitioners and a third party concerning the status of the post, they will not be bound by the order of the C.A.T. in Ext.P7. Subject to the above clarification, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps