IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 21393 of 2002(S) ----------------------- OA.471/2001 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH SCHEME, 3/45, KESAVADASAPURAM,. TRIVANDRUM-695 004 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NEW DELHI 3. THE ADDL. DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (HQ) DTE. GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.P.DAMODARAN, RETIRED LICENSING ASSISTANT., 39/2730, KIZHAKKE ILLOM, D.H.ROAD, KOCHI-16 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SOMARAJAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.21393/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF OA 471/2001 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 18.5.2001. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OA 471/2001 DATED 28.1.2002 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA 471/2001 DT. 14.2.2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 21393 OF 2002-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 1st January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners challenge Ext.P3 order, on the ground that the same has been issued without taking note of Rule 17(3) of the Central Government Health Scheme. Even before this Court was moved, the amount due as per the impugned order of the C.A.T., was paid and he 1st respondent has encashed the cheque also. So, the Original Petition has become infructuous. But, it was admitted, as the petitioners pointed out that they are aggrieved by the legal principles laid down by the Tribunal. Now, the point raised has become an academic issue. Unless it is absolutely necessary for the disposal of a case, this Court will not decide any legal question. We feel that the grievance of the petitioners will be redressed, if their contentions against Ext.P3 order of the C.A.T are kept open and also declared that the said order will not bind them as a precedent. We do so. Op 21393/2002 2 The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/ Op 21393/2002 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- O.P. NO.21393/2002-S ------------------------------------------- JUDGEMENT 01.01.2008.