IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 17704 of 2004(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICER, PARK TOWN P.O. CHENNAI 600 003. 2. SR.DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM - 14. 3. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TIRUCHIRAPPALLY DIVISION, THIRUCHIRAPPALLY, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU,SR.SC.RAILWAYS SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VEENA SULOCHANAN, W/O.JYOTHI KUMAR, BOOKING CLERK, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ALWAYE R/A. AT H.NO.XLIV/1287, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C) No.17704 of 2004-S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. Even though this writ petition is pending from 2004 onwards, it is seen that connected original petitions challenging similar orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, namely, O.P.Nos.38016/2001, 15338/2002, 15340/2002 and 17172/2002 were disposed of by this Court by common judgment dated 04/03/2005. Stay obtained by the petitioners in this case got expired way back in October 2004. It is not known whether thereafter the order was accepted and implemented by the petitioners. [If the petitioners have accepted the orders and implemented the same, then there is no scope for interference of the impugned order.] However, in the connected petitions, the impugned Tribunal's order was not accepted by the petitioners and the benefits were not given to the employee concerned. We see no reason why a different decision is to be rendered in this case. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition following the judgment in the above batch case with the same findings, observations and W.P.(C) No. 17704 of 2004-S -: 2 :- directions as contained in the said judgment. As directed in that judgment, the concerned petitioner is directed to take fresh decision and the first respondent is to be advised of the decision within a period of three months from today. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms