IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 3807 of 2005(S) ------------------------------------ OA.298/2003 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.N. PEETHAMBARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (PHONES) BSNL, PALAI, RESIDING AT ARUNAPURAM HOUSE, N.E. WARD, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK SRI.P.C.KUNJAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS/ CHAIRMAN, TELECOM COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM BSNL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN, SC, BSNL FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 3807/2005-S APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.298/2003 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/09/2004 IN O.A. NO.298/03 OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 3807 OF 2005 ============================ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner was a Divisional Engineer working under the respondents when he filed this writ petition. This writ petition is filed by him challenging Ext.P4 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17-9-2004 in O.A.No.298/2003. Ext.P1 is the copy of the original application. The petitioner and others challenged Annexure- A1 and Annexure-A7 produced along with that O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The benefits granted to the petitioner and others as per Annexures-A2 and A4 were withdrawn by the respondents pursuant to a later decision of the Apex Court. As per the impugned orders, they claimed that the benefits granted to them under the above orders have become final and they cannot be tinkered with based on some subsequent decision of the Apex Court. But their claim has been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order, Ext.P4. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Now the point raised by them is practically covered by the WPC.3807/2005 -2- decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn.(2006)8 SC.C.662. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “18. The question then arises as to whether the applicants can claim the protection of their seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of observations and the clarification contained in the judgment of this Court in Madras Telephone. Having considered all aspects of the matter we are satisfied that those whose cases stand on the same footing as that of Parmanand Lal cannot now be adversely affected by redetermination of their seniority to their disadvantage relying on the later judgment of this Court in Madras Telephones as affirmed by this Court in its judgment in Madras Telephone. 19. We, therefore, direct that such of the applicants whose seniority had been determined by the competent authority, and who had been given benefit of seniority and promotion pursuant to the orders passed by courts or tribunals following the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court and approved by this Court, which orders have since attained finality, cannot be reverted with WPC.3807/2005 -3- retrospective effect. The determination of their seniority and the consequent promotion having attained finality, the principles laid down in later judgments will not adversely affect their cases. 20. This Court has clearly clarified the position in its aforesaid judgment. The observations made by this Court while disposing of the appeal of Parmanand Lal are also pertinent. This Court clearly laid down the principle that the seniority fixed on the basis of the directions of this Court which had attained finality is not liable to be altered by virtue of a different interpretation being given for fixation of seniority by different Benches of the Tribunal. Consequently, the promotions already effected on the basis of seniority determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court cannot be altered. 21. Having regard to the above observations and clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants whose claim to seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Parmanand Lal case have been upheld WPC.3807/2005 -4- or recognised by the Court or the Tribunal by judgment and order which have attained finality will not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken in the judgment Madras Telephones. Since the rights of such applicants were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which determination has attained finality, a subsequent judgment of a court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the orders have attained finality. We order accordingly”. 3. In view of the above decision, the petitioner submits Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside and the O.A.is liable to be allowed quashing Annexures A1 and A7. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the B.S.N.L. The learned counsel submitted that Ext.P4 is not challenged by all the applicants therein. Only a few of them have come before this Court. So, this Court may grant the benefits only to those persons who have chosen to challenge Ext.P4. 5. We agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case is covered by the above quoted decision of the Apex Court. Accordingly, Annexures A1 and A7 to Ext.P1 O.A. to the WPC.3807/2005 -5- extent they affect the writ petitioner are quashed. The benefits he got as per the order of the C.A.T.in Annexure-A2 is restored. Consequential benefits , if any, payable to the writ petitioner shall be released to him within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks.