IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20808 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.552/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, RMS ERNAKULAM DIVISION, KOCHI -11. BY ADV. SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- K.D. FRANCIS, S/O K.P. DEVASSY, MAILMAN HRO ,RMS, ERNAKULAM DIVISION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20808 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JULY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. This is yet another frivolous writ petition filed by the Union of India only for wasting its time and money. 2. The writ petitioners are the applicants in O.A.No.552/07, a copy of which is produced as Exhibit P1. The applicant is the respondent herein. He was an employee of the Railway Mail Service. He was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the same. Challenging those orders, he filed O.A.No.206/2000. The said O.A. was allowed by Annexure A1 order in Exhibit P1 O.A. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “ Accordingly, we set aside Annexure A1 and A2 and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service. Considering the fact that the applicant has come to this Tribunal with a belated application, he will not be entitled to get back wages and other monetary benefits, from the date of his dismissal from service till W.P.(C)No.20808/08 -2- the date of filing of this O.A.(Reference to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (JT 2002 (1) SC 409). The Tribunal set aside the original order as well as the appellate order and ordered his reinstatement in service, but without back wages and other monetary benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of filing of the O.A. The said decision was confirmed by this Court also by the judgment in O.P.No.21898/02 dated 25.2.2005. Later, the writ petitioners issued proceedings treating the period of absence from 9.3.1994 to 13.12.1999 as eligible service for the purpose of pension. It was also ordered that the pay and allowances for the period from 14.12.1999 to 11.5.2005 be limited to subsistence allowance admissible under the provisions of the Fundamental Rule 54A(2) subject to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54(7). The said order was challenged before the CAT. The CAT found that going by the earlier direction issued by the CAT, the applicant was entitled to get all service benefits except back wages upto 13.12.1999 and full back wages from that date. Therefore, the present attempt made under the impugned order will tantamount to modifying the earlier order of the CAT. Based on that finding, the said proceedings of the competent authority was set aside and it was declared as follows: W.P.(C)No.20808/08 -3- “ To avoid any ambiguity in the matter, we hold that the applicant is entitled to all the service benefits except to back wages for the period from 9.3.1994 to 13.12.1999. As regards the period from 14.12.1999 to 11.5.2005 is concerned, he is entitled for all benefits including the full pay and allowances and all other consequential benefits as available to him under the service rules governing his appointment. The respondents shall issue necessary revised orders accordingly, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” This Writ Petition is filed challenging the above directions of the CAT. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the CAT. The present order which was set aside by the CAT under Exhibit P3 is plainly untenable and ultra vires. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn