IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2894 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/01/2009 IN RA 44/2008 IN OA.21/2008 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- L.MONY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LAKSHMANA REDDIAR, (RETD.LOCO PILOT (PASSENGER) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM JUNCTION) RESIDING AT "DEVI NILAYAM" THYCOODAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY, MR.G.SHYAM RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O.CHENNAI-3. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM -14. BY MR. N.B. SUNIL NATH, S.C, RAILWAYS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ============================== W.P.(C) No.2894 of 2009 ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The writ petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.21 of 2008. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal by Ext.P6 order dated 11.4.2008. The respondents unsuccessfully challenged the said order before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23269 of 2008. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court by Ext.P7 judgment dated 4.8.2008. The respondents filed a Review Petition before this Court, which was also dismissed as withdrawn as per Ext.P9. Later they attempted a Review Petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner submits that the Review Petition was filed on new grounds. Further, since the order of the Tribunal has merged with the judgment of this Court, the review is not maintainable also. Though this and other contentions were raised, the Tribunal allowed the Review Petition and posted the O.A. for re-hearing by Ext.P16 order. Hence, this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P16. 2. We notice that the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P16. But he need approach this Court only if the final order in the O.A. goes against him. See the decision of the Apex Court in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Admn. and others - A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 153. In view of the legal position laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, we feel that the WP(C) 2894/09 -: 2 :- petitioner should wait till the Tribunal passes final order in the matter. If the final order is against him, he can challenge the same before this Court and the contention taken by the petitioner in this Writ Petition against Ext.P16 can be urged by him in that Writ Petition. In other words, the contentions of the petitioner against Ext.P16 are kept open. With this observation, the Writ Petition is closed. The Tribunal shall endeavour to pass final orders in the O.A. as expeditiously as possible. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 2/2