IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27524 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.131/2002 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONERS: 1. A.ADHIKARANATHAIAR, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT (RETD), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJAM NAMBI IYENGAR, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT (RTD), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNAL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, BAHADURSHA ZAFAR MARG, PRASTHA HEAD POST OFFICE, P.B.NO.17, NEW DELHI-110 002. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A & E, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-39. 4. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R1TOR3 SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR, SC, IA & AD FOR R2 & 3 SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC FOR R1 & 2 SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC SRI.V.V.ASHOKAN,SC,IA & AD-INDIAN AUDI FOR R2,3 SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, ADDL.CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 27524/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ODER DATED 31.12.1987 IN O.A. NO. 90/87 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 20.11.1989. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL REPORTED IN (1995) 2 SCC 32. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2005 IN O.A. NO. 131/2002. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2005 IN R.A. NO. 13/2005 IN O.A. 31/2002. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.1.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OE (BILLS) A& E/1/05-06 DATED 8.2.2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. DATED 25.11.1958 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE. EXT.R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. DATED 19.7.1978 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE. EXT.R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. DATED 28.2.2003 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE. EXT.R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. DATED 14.10.1997 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) 27524/2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T P.S. Gopinathan, J. Petitioner is the applicant in O.A. 131 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. His application was dismissed by Ext.P4 order dated 20.9.2005. Though he preferred a review application as R.A. No. 13 of 2005, that was also dismissed by Ext.P5 order dated 18.11.2005. Assailing Exts. P4 and P5 orders, this writ petition was preferred. The dispute is regarding the fixation of the pay of the petitioners who were re-employed. Para 13 of Ext.P4 reads as follows: "In view of what has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the view that the Apex Court has only held that the decision to reduce the enhanced pension from the pay of those ex-servicemen only who are holding civil posts on 1.1.86, following their re-employment as unconstitutional. The said decision of the Apex Court cannot be made applicable to the treatment of pre-revised pension prior to 1.1.86 as the issue has already been settled vide order dated 31.12.1987 in O.A. 90/87 filed by the applicant No.1. The said order has attained its finality and the same could not be unsettled now after 18 years. The present O.A. is, therefore dismissed. No order as to costs." W.P.(C) 27524/2006 2 Having heard either side, we find that the petitioners were non suited as the matter in issue was settled eighteen years back as per order dated 30.12.1987 in O.A. 90 of 1987. The Tribunal was right in declining to re- open the same after 18 years. Though the learned counsel had made fervent attempt to make us interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal, we find no good reason. The order of the Tribunal is not in any way vitiated by any illegality error or impropriety. The writ petition is devoid of merit. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-