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 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10883 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.697/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES TRIVANDRUM SOUTH DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENT: ------------- RAFEEKABEEVI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.M.NISSAR, GDS SP, PACHALLORR, RESIDING AT MELEKILLATHU VILAKOM PACHALLOOR PO, TRIVANDRUM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 10883 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 31st March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.697/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The respondent was the applicant therein. The applicant/respondent was regularly selected and appointed as Extra Departmental Sub Post Master, Pachalloor on 22.2.1999. One Smt. M.V. Vijayalakshmi claimed for a transfer to this post at Pachalloor. She moved O.A.No.1346/1998 before the C.A.T., when the selection process was going on. So, when the appointment order was issued on 22.2.1999, it was stated that the appointment will be provisional and subject to the result of the said O.A. The O.A was decided in favour of Smt.Vijayalakshmi. The applicant filed a review petition in that O.A. That was dismissed. Thereafter, she approached this Court by filing O.P.No.20573/2001. This Court directed to consider the rival claims of the applicant and Smt.Vijayalakshmi for the WPC 10883/2008 2 post of Sub Post Master at Pachalloor. The Superintendent of Post Offices by order dated 11.2.2002, which is produced as Annexure-A1 in the O.A., upheld the claim of the applicant, the respondent herein. But, the Director of Postal Services by Annexure-A2 memo dated 13.3.2002, reversed the said decision. The applicant challenged that order by filing O.A.No.174/2002. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, she filed W.P.(C) No.19566/2003 before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Tribunal, to consider the claim of the applicant, in the light of the decision of this Court in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Raji Mol [2004(1) KLT 183]. Finally, the O.A was allowed on 16.7.2004, directing to appoint the applicant as Sub Post Master. The said order was challenged by Smt.M.V.Vijayalakshmi before this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed by Annexure-A3 judgment dated 10.11.2004. Later, based on the said decision, the applicant was re-appointed as Sub Post Master, Pachalloor, by Ext.P4 order dated 1.3.2005. She claimed all service benefits from 8.3.1999 up to the date of rejoining pursuant to the order dated 1.3.2005. But, her claim was rejected, by Annexure-A6 order dated 9.3.2006. So, the present O.A was filed, seeking grant of annual increments and bonus from 8.3.1999 and also for regularisation of the period from WPC 10883/2008 3 20.6.2003 to 3.3.2005, when she was out of service, by granting all service benefits, including pay and allowances. The writ petitioners resisted the application. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, allowed the O.A. Hence this Writ Petition challenging the said order of the C.A.T., a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. 2. The Tribunal after considering the materials on record, held as follows: “The very first appointment order of the applicant though stamped as provisional was so treated on account of the pendency of a court case and not on account of any substantial deficiency in the procedure adopted in selection. Once the claim of M.V.Vijayalakshmi has been held to be impermissible, the sting in the appointment of the applicant in 1999 (viz. Provisional) gets obliterated. That the applicant has been kept out of employment for a short spell also is not attributable to her conduct but was by way of a clear erroneous decision by the Director of Postal Services.” Based on the above findings, reliefs were granted. We notice that the above view taken by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and valid. It was fully justified in taking such a view. The respondent herein was unnecessarily kept out of service, owing to the illegal orders of the competent authority. Once that order is set aside, she is entitled to get all consequential benefits. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ WPC 10883/2008 4 Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/