IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28622 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJESH.A.K. S/O.BHASKARAN, PALLIPARAMBATH HOUSE, PO,.ERANCHOLI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.K.DILIP SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PREVENTIVE OPERATIONS(CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE)NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, ERNAKULAM,682 018. SHRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, A.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 28622 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's father was an employee of the Department of Central Excise and Customs under the Government of India. He died while in service. The petitioner sought compassionate employment, which was rejected by a non-speaking order. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, by filing O.A.No.1429/1996, in which, by Ext.P4 order, the respondents were directed to pass a speaking order within one month from the date of Ext.P4 order. Again the petitioner's claim has been rejected, against which, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Call for the records connected with the case. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the applications filed by the petitioner compassionately and to pass orders; (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the applications filed by the petitioner compassionately and to pass an order appointing the petitioner in the Clerical Post and further direct the 3rd Respondent to execute the order passed by the 2nd Respondent.” 2. I am of opinion that the petitioner's remedy lies in again approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal insofar as this Court's jurisdiction is barred by the Administrative Tribunals At. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2