IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 4534 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.408/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE CALICUT POSTAL DIVISION, CALICUT. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS TRIVANDRUM. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N.J.TOM THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS ASSISTANT POST MASTER, CALICUT HEAD POST OFFICE CALICUT, RESIDING AT NERIYAMPARAMBIL, RAMANATTUKARA, CALICUT 673 633. 2. S.CHANDRA KANTHI ASSISTANT POSTMASTER, CALICUT HEAD POST OFFICE CALICUT. 3. M.O.DEVASSY, POSTAL ASSISTANT C/O.SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES THRISSUR POSTAL DIVISION ,THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. FOR R1 SRI.K.M.GEORGE HARRISH REJOICE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 12470 OF 2009 & 22430/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX(WPC 4534/09) PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO. 408 OF 2007 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CAT ORDER DATED 20.6.2008 IN OA NO. 408/2007 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF OM NO. OMNO. 20011/5/90- ESTT (D) DATED 4.11.1992. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2009 IN WPC 37673 OF 2008 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.6.2010 IN RP 226 OF 2010 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 3.10.2009 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HONOURBLE CAT EXT.R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.10.2009 WITHOUT ANNEXURES FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CAT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. Nos. 4534 & 12470 of 2009 & 22430 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the connected Writ Petitions filed by the Union of India and Postal Department is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing promotion to the Lower Selection Grade Assistants based on seniority of employees in the grade of Postal Assistant in the Circle. The contention of the petitioners is that promotion to the Lower Selection Grade until 18.5.2006 was given based on seniority at Division level and not on State level (circle level). On the other hand, respondents' contention, which found acceptance with the Tribunal, is that Postal Assistant's seniority has to be fixed based on merit in the Select list and based on their date of entry into service. It is seen from the records produced before us that the issue came up before the Tribunal way back in 2007 in O.A.No. 314 of 2007 and the Tribunal allowed the claim against WPC 4534 & 12470/09 & 22430/10 2 which Writ Petition was filed which was disposed of by this Court on 12.10.2009 (WPC 37673 of 2008). It is seen that the very same petitioners representing Postal Department admitted in court that Tribunal's order for refixing circle based (Statewise) seniority will be made and thereafter promotion to the post of Lower Selection Grade will be made and for the purpose of implementing the Tribunal's order, petitioners have taken further time from this Court. The Review Petition filed against the judgment of this Court was dismissed by this Court vide order in R.P.No. 226 of 2010 dated 8.6.2010. One of the counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the matter is taken to Supreme Court. However, no orders of the Supreme Court are produced before us to take a view different from the view taken by this Court in the WPC above referred, which was disposed of based on admission by petitioners. Counsel for the respondents have also produced an affidavit filed by petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal in a contempt matter undertaking to implement the order. Therefore on the face of it, and in view of the stand taken by petitioners in the above WPC, we doubt whether the petitioners can canvass a different proposition before this Court after accepting the Tribunal's order and undertaking to implement the same before this WPC 4534 & 12470/09 & 22430/10 3 Court. 2. Counsel for the petitioners contended that seniority and grades have been given based on seniority or staff in every Division until 18.5.2006. Therefore according to the petitioners, some of the employees will face reversal if State-wise seniority of Postal Assistants is again prepared based on Tribunal's order. However, this is a matter of concern for the employees. Department need not worry about any adverse effect on the other employees in the course of implementation of the Tribunal's order. We therefore do not find any merit in this contention. Further we are of the view that Tribunal rightly held that seniority of employees in the post of Postal Assistants in the State as a whole should be reckoned for the purpose of further promotions. We are therefore of the view that the decision of the Tribunal is perfectly in order and department cannot have any grievance against it. All these Writ Petitions are therefore dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk WPC 4534 & 12470/09 & 22430/10 4