IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15604 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.331/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SATHEESAN, AGED 61, S/O LATE K.M.MENON DEPUTY DIRECTOR, (RETIRED) CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, RESIDING AT "LAKSHMI NIVAS", S.R.M, ROAD, COCHIN-18. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, SHRAM SAKTI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 OO1. 2. THE CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SEWA BHAVAN, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI. 3. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WP(C) 15604/2008 PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN OA 331/2005 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 20.4.2005. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DTD. 20.10.2005. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED TO THE REJOINDER DATED NIL. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.331 OF 2005 BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DTD. 19.7.2007. lgk K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ ........................................... WP(C).NO. 15604 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ petitioner was the applicant in O.A.331 of 2005 before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench. In the said original application, petitioner challenged Annexure A8 order produced along with Ext.P1 memorandum of the original application and also prayed for a further direction to consider the applicant for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade. The petitioner, applicant was not promoted for the reason that he did not have the grading `very good' for five years. He was having `very good' only for three years and `good' for two years. The petitioner contended that he was aggrieved by the non- communication of the grading `good' for two years. Since the bench mark grading fixed was ` very good', the grading `good' should also be treated as adverse and unless the same is communicated, the same cannot be relied on. Raising the said ground, Ext.P1 original application was filed. 2. Respondents resisted the original application, contending that the grading `good' cannot be treated as adverse and therefore the same need not be communicated. WP(C) 15604/2008 2 3. The Tribunal, considering the contentions of both sides, upheld the contention of the respondents and dismissed the original application by Ext.P5 order dated 19.7.2007. Hence this writ petition challenging the said order of the CAT. 4. Now, the point raised by the petitioner is covered in his favour by the decision of the Apex Court in Dev Dutt V Union of India and others ( 2008(8) SCC 725). Therefore Ext.P5 order is quashed. Ext.P1 original application is remitted to CAT for fresh disposal in accordance with law, in the light of the above decision of the Apex Court. Writ petition is allowed as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE K SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk/-