IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 988 of 2011(S) --------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, VADAKARA DIVISION, VADAKARA-673 101. 2. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, CALICUT. 3. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA RESPONDENT: --------------- K.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SON OF LATE A.P.SANKARAN VAIDYAN, GROUP D (RETIRED), KOYILANDI-HPO, RESIDING AT PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, PANTHALAYANI, KOYILANDI-673 305. ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON 20.8.2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CAT) NO.988/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE O.A.No.393/2009 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT ALONG THE ANNEXURE BEFORE THE HON'BLLE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HON'BLLE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.393/2009. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT BEFORE THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.393/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.5.4.2010 OF THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.393/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.46/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.393/2009. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.10.1.2011 R.A.NO.46/2010 PASSED BY THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.393/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ O.P.(CAT) No.988 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ P.S.Gopinathan, J. The respondents, in Ext.P4 order dated 5.4.2010 in O.A.No.393/2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are the petitioners in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Earlier, they made an effort to have Ext.P4 order reviewed by filing a Review Petition as R.A.No.46/2010. But it was dismissed as per Ext.P6 order dated 10.1.2011. Exts.P4 and P6 are assailed in this Original Petition. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal below. He entered the service of the petitioners as an Extra Departmental Messenger (ED Messenger) in Koilandy on 1.7.1972. He was regularised as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) with effect from 1.4.1993 in Naderi Sub Division. EDDA is entitled to be promoted in Group D on seniority basis. According to the respondent, though a vacancy arose on 31.12.1997, the petitioners denied promotion to the respondent. So, he was constrained to file an application before the Tribunal below as O.A.No.130/2002. By Annexure-A1 order O.P.(CAT) No.988/2011 2 dated 14.6.2002, that application was allowed and the petitioners were directed to give notional promotion in a vacancy that arose in the year 1997 or 1998 in Group D. In pursuance to Annexure-A1 order, the respondent was provisionally promoted as Group D on 20.9.1992. Thereafter, the respondent was given a notional status in Group D with effect from 25.10.2000, the day on which his next junior was given Group D status against a vacancy that arose in 1998. While working so, the respondent retired on 30.6.2008. Alleging that the respondent has no minimum period of service in Group D, pension and other retiral benefits were declined. Had Annexure-A1 is complied as such, the respondent would be eligible for pension. Being aggrieved, the respondent moved the Tribunal below pursuant to which Ext.P4 order was issued by the Tribunal. The Tribunal below directed the petitioners to give notional promotion from 1.1.1978, the date of arising vacancy. 2. We have heard Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, Assistant Solicitor General of India and senior Advocate Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan appearing for the respondent and perused the orders impugned as well as the documents. O.P.(CAT) No.988/2011 3 3. Annexure-A1 order in O.A.No.130/2002 was assailed by the petitioners before this Court in O.P.No.23876/2002, but the petitioners were not successful. After failing before this Court, the petitioners moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition as S.L.P.No.14431/2008 wherein leave was granted and the appeal was numbered as C.A.No.3407/2009, but the petitioners were not successful. Thereafter, by filing a Contempt Petition as C.P.(C) No.50/2008, the respondent got Annexure-A1 order implemented. But the petitioners were not good enough to implement Annexure-A1 order in letter and spirit. We observe so, because before us the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has fairly conceded that a vacancy in Group D occurred as on 31.12.1997. In the event the respondent was given due promotion on the date of arising of vacancy, the respondent would have got sufficient service entitling him for pension and other retiral benefits. In fact, the petitioners were bound by Annexure-A1 order to implement the same with effect from the date of arising of vacancy. On the other hand, the respondent was given notional status with effect from the day on which his next junior was given Group D status. We are unable to accept that reasoning by O.P.(CAT) No.988/2011 4 any stretch of imagination. If Annexure-A1 order was fully complied with, it would have been only granting a due right and the subsequent litigation would not have arisen. The Tribunal below by Ext.P4 order had directed the petitioners only to implement Annexure-A1 order with the date on which the respondent was entitled to be promoted. There is no error of jurisdiction, perversity or illegality in Ext.P4 order whereby the petitioners were directed to promote the respondent with effect from the date of arising of vacancy. Though not borne out by any material on record, the learned Assistant Solicitor General had submitted that a person senior to the respondent was also given promotion only with effect from 25.10.2000. We don't know what was the reason. However, that order is not seen assailed and no order was made available for perusal. Even if one of the senior to the respondent was given only a subsequent date that is not at all a reason to decline the benefits due to the respondent, who had been working in the lower strata eversince 1.7.1972. We are at dark as to why the petitioners are looking horns with those employed in lower strata and multiplying litigation with a motive to see somehow or other, due rights are denied to them. We find no merit in the petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed O.P.(CAT) No.988/2011 5 with costs. The petitioners are directed to fix the notional status of the respondent with effect from 1.1.1998, the date of arising of vacancy and to disburse the pension and other retiral benefits within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ( P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/18/8