IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 3418 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.599/2011 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ INDUCHOODAN C.G., THERATHENAL HOUSE, SOUTH EROOR, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENT: --------------- THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD., HARCHANDRAI HOUSE, 81, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI-400 002. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A. NO.599/2011 OF THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P2: TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.599/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P3: TRUE COPY OF REVIEW APPLICATION NO.36/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.36/2011 OF THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P5: TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED VIDE NO.P&A/RTI/2011/1461 DT.13.9.2011 OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. C.J. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... O.P.(CAT) No.3418 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C.J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for respondent who took notice on admission. The petitioner while an officer of the respondent went abroad before grant of leave which led to disciplinary action against him. When this was challenged before the CAT, CAT interfered with the disciplinary proceedings and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement. This order was challenged before this court by the respondent and this court vide Annexure-A12 judgment in W.P.(C) No.16894/2010 rejected the Company's claim upholding the order of the CAT with direction to the Company either to reinduct him in service or to give him retirement benefits accepting his resignation. Based on the observation in Annexure-A12 judgment, the Company opted for accepting petitioner's resignation and offered to give terminal benefits. However, this decision was challenged in another round O.P.(CAT) 3418/11 2 before the CAT by the petitioner stating that based on Annexure-A12 judgment respondent did not consider petitioner's eligibility for rejoining the service. The CAT, however, rejected the claim against which this O.P.(CAT) is filed. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders and Annexure-A12 judgment, what we notice is that the petitioner's contention that the company did not consider his eligibility for reinduction in the service of the respondent is not correct. When company accepted the resignation and communicated the same to the petitioner, then it necessarily implies that respondent does not want to induct the petitioner back to service. Consequently there was no need to consider petitioner's suitability for reinduction in service by the respondent. The CAT rightly turned down the petition filed by the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to claim terminal benefits based on acceptance of resignation. The respondent is directed to grant all the O.P.(CAT) 3418/11 3 benefits eligible to him without any delay. The O.P.(CAT) is dismissed with the above direction to the respondent-Company. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Acting Chief Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms