IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 63 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.520/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,CORPORATE OFFICE, STATESMAN HOUSE,NEW DELHI. 3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIO/ CHAIRMAN,TELECOM COMMISSION,MUNISTRY OF COMMUNICATION,SANCHAR BHAVAN,NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. G.MOHANDAS,DIVISIONAL ENGINEER(EXTERNAL) BSNL,CENTRAL DIVISION,TRIVANDRUM-3. 2. K.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR,DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION & MAINTENENCE)STR,TELECOM BHAVAN, BSNL,M.C.P.O,TRIVANDRUM-11. 3. S.PONNU IYER,ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (O&M),O/O.CGMT,BSNL,TRIVANDRUM-33. 4. BABY PETER,DIVISIONAL ENGINEER(EXTERNAL) BSNL NEMOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20. 5. B.SUDHAKARAN,DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BSNL,ATTINGAL. 6. E.KRISHNA PILLAI,DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (RETD),TELECOM BHAVAN,BSNL,M.C.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-11. 7. A.MARIADAS,ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (RRC),O/O.CGMT,BSNL,TELECOM BHAVAN,M.C.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11. 2 8. B.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER(RTD),CABLE PLANNING-II,O/O PGMT,BSNL, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-16. 9. T.D.YOHANNAN,DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (BB & COMP),BSNL,TELEPHONE EXCHANGE MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P. (CAT) No. 63 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The order under challenge is Ext.P5 issued by the Tribunal. After hearing both sides and after going through the Tribunal's order, we notice that the Tribunal has only followed the earlier decision of the Supreme Court and that of this Court in the same matter. However, petitioners' case is that Supreme Court has admitted another SLP which is coming up for hearing and this O.P. is filed challenging the order only to keep the matter alive so that if Supreme Court accepts the position canvassed by the petitioners, they want to apply it to this case as well. Counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that issue is already covered by the earlier decision of this Court. On going through the Tribunal's order we do not think petitioners can have any grievance because the Tribunal by allowing the claim has specifically stated that the claim is allowed subject to the decision of the Supreme OP (CAT) 63/2010 2 Court in the pending SLP. In other words, if the Supreme Court judgment is in favour of the petitioners without any need for them to challenge this order, they will get the relief. We dismiss the O.P. but on condition that if there is change in legal position after the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP, the same will apply between the parties, without the necessity of challenging this judgment or the order of the Tribunal before the Supreme Court. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk OP (CAT) 63/2010 3