IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18834 of 2010(S) --------------------------------------- OA.18/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K. LIESON, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KUTTINADAR EX-CASUAL LABOURER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, RESIDING AT MALAN VILAI VEEDU, KARAVILAI NALLUR, MARTHANDOM.P.O. KANAYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHER RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERSOFFICE, PARK TOWN.P.O,CHENNAI-3. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-14. 4. THE SR.DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-14. BY ADV. MR.N.B. SUNIL NATH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C)No.18834 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The trump-card of the petitioner's case in challenge to the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is Annexure-A8 in Ext.P3. He tries to show that on 14.12.1989, the Executive Engineer/Constn., Palayamkottai got issued that communication to the petitioner stating inter alia that adverting to the order dated 7.9.1989 issued by the CAT, the petitioner's service particulars have been advised to DRM(P)/TVC for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of project labourers of pre.1-1-81 list as per the letter referred to in that Annexure-A8 and to consider the petitioner for re-engagement according to his turn as and WPC18834/10 -: 2 :- when vacancy arises. The fact of the matter remains that thereafter, the petitioner and others filed O.A.1795/1991. The petitioner was the 26th applicant in that case. Though the matter was remitted by the Apex Court for re- consideration by the Tribunal, it was ultimately dismissed as per Annexure A10 order dated 30.4.1998. Ten years thereafter, the original application from which this writ petition arises, was filed. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claims are nothing but repetitions of the claims made earlier in O.A.1795/1991 and subsequent original applications and also matters before this Court. The petitioner appears to raise controversy as to the identity of one Sri.K.Mani referred to in the order in O.A.192/2008, a portion of which is quoted in the impugned order issued by the Tribunal in O.A.18/2008. It is the case of the petitioner that different judgments directly binding the parties on facts have been issued by this Court and also by the Tribunal and all such materials WPC18834/10 -: 3 :- have not been considered by the Tribunal. Perusing the materials, we find that the applicant(writ petitioner) had not placed all those materials before the Tribunal. At the first blush, we are not impressed by the argument that the finality of the judgment in O.A.1795/1991 to which the petitioner was a party, does not stare at him. With this, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move the Tribunal seeking review of the impugned order. We grant such leave and dismiss this writ petition without prejudice to contentions in any such review application that may be filed before the Tribunal. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/0207