IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 6555 of 2007(S) ------------------------- OA.620/2003 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI. 4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ALUVA DIVISION, ALUVA-683 101. 5. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.THOMASMATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SR.PANEL SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ALL INDIA POSTAL EXTRA DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEES UNION (AIPEDEU), ALUVA DIVISION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, M.J.GEORGE, S/O.LATE M.P.JACOB, GDS MC, YORDHANAPURAM, KALADY SO, RESIDING AT MENACHERY HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY P.O. 2. M.Y.NALINAKUMARI, D/O.LATE A.N.KRISHNAN NAIR, GDS BPM, NAYATHODE BO, ANGAMALI SO, RESIDING AT MAPPALLIL HOUSE, NAYATHODE, ANGAMALI. 3. C.K. OMANA ANTHARJANAM, D/O.LATE C.K.KESAVAN ELAYATH, GDS MD, NAYATHODE BO, ANGAMALI SO, RESIDING AT VAZHUTHANAPPILLIL ILLOM, EDATHALA P.O. W.P.(C) 6555/2007 :2: 4. P.D. PATHROSE, S/O.LATE P.P. DEVASSY, GDS MD, KODANAD BO, KOOVAPPALLY SO, RESIDING AT PALLASSERIL HOUSE, KODANAD P.O. 5. N.P. VARGHESE, S/O.MR. C. PAILY, GDS MD, VAIKARA BO, ASAMANNOOR SO, RESIDING AT NIRAVATH HOUSE, KOZHOOR, AYRAPURAM P.O., ALUVA. 6. P.K. REMESAN, S/O.MR.R. KESAVAN NAIR, GDS MD-I, THRIKKALATHUR P.O., RESIDING AT NADUVELIL HOUSE, THRIKKALATHUR. R2 TO 6 BY ADVS. M/S. O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, K.RADHAMANI AMMA , .ANTONY MUKKATH, .K.V.JOY & SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29470 OF 2009 & WPC NO. 3779 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 6555/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2006 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. 620/2003. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO. 620/2003 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF MA 171/2004 IN O.A. 620/2003 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR AMENDING THE OA. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF AMENDED O.A. 620/2003. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE AMENDED O.A. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 6555/2007, 3779/2009 & 29470/2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. COMMON JUDGMENT P.S. Gopinathan, J. The issue involved in these cases being common, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C) 6555/2007 and W.P.(C) 29470/2009 were filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Whereas the other petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In all the cases, petitioners are common. W.P.(C) 6555/2007 is against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. 620/2003. W.P.(C) 3779/2007 is against the order in O.A. 66 of 2008. The other petition is against the order in O.A. 669 of 2008. Going by the orders impugned, we find that O.A. 620/2003 was disposed of following Annexure A9 order of the CAT in O.A. 141/2003 and O.A. 193/2003 which were disposed earlier. O.A. 66/2008 and 669/2008 were disposed of following the order in O.A. 620/2003. The petitioners are the respondents before the Tribunal. W.P.(C) Nos. 6555/07, 3779/09 & 29470/09 2 2. As against the order in O.A. 141/2003 and O.A. 193/2003, the very same petitioners had preferred petitions as W.P.(C) No. 30693/2003 and W.P.(C) 30547/2003. It is now submitted that both those writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Copy of the judgment dated 8.3.2004 in O.P. 30547/2003 is produced. That being so, the order in O.A. 141/2003 and O.A. 193/2003 has become final. The issue being common, there is no reason to discriminate the respondents with the respondents in O.A. 141/2003 and O.A. 193/2003. Before us, no material was produced by the petitioners to show that the party respondents are entitled to a different treatment. Therefore, on that reason itself all the petition would fail. 3. Going by Annexure A9 order, coupled with the order impugned in these petitions, we find that 50% of the post of the Postman are reserved for Group D employees. The remaining 50% is reserved for merit quota to the Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS). As per Rules, in the event there is no sufficient number of candidates from group D, the remaining posts reserved for Group D would go to the GDS merit quota. The party respondents who are GDS, claim for promotion as Postman under the merit quota along with the unfilled quota reserved for Group D. Petitioners denied the claim by stating that a decision has to be taken by the Directorate W.P.(C) Nos. 6555/07, 3779/09 & 29470/09 3 to add the unfilled vacancies to GDS quota. According to the respondents, since the Recruitment Rules 1989 namely, Post & Telegraph (Postman/Male Guards/Head Guards) Recruitment Rules 1989 provides for automatic conversion of the post reserved for Group D in their absence to GDS merit quota, no further administrative approval is required. In the cases on hand while the petitioners waiting for approval from the Directorate, new pension scheme was implemented. The respondents contended that old pension scheme was more advantageous to them than the new scheme. Therefore, they sought promotion with retrospective effect in the existing vacancy so as to entitle them to claim retiral benefits as per the old scheme. The Tribunal below in O.A. 141/2003 and O.A. 193/2003 held that when there are self-speaking rules, the administrative instruction cannot over-rule or over-reach the rules. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the applicants therein are entitled to promotion with retrospective effect from the date when the applicants therein were qualified. By the impugned order, the respondents are also found entitled to such retrospectivity. We are in full agreement with the Tribunal. The Tribunal had not at all erred. On the other hand, the decision of the Tribunal is in tune with the well settled legal provision. The respondents herein being entitled to be treated W.P.(C) Nos. 6555/07, 3779/09 & 29470/09 4 at par with the applicants in O.A. 141/2003 and O.A. 193/2003, we find no reason to interfere with the orders impugned. All the petitions are devoid of merits. In the result, all the petitions are dismissed with costs. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-