IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10887 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OS.220/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, MANJERI DIVISION, MANJERI-676 121. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENTS: ------------- M. SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O. GOVINDAN KUTTY NAIR, GRAMIN DAK SEVAK BRANCH POSTMASTER, PULLANGODE, RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE PULLANGODE P.O., KALIKAVU-676 625. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.10887 OF 2008-S -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The writ petitioners were the respondents in O.A.No.220/2007. The applicant therein is the respondent herein. He was an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent in Pullengode. He was posted as an Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster of the very same post office. Whether on joining the new post, he is entitled to protection of the pay drawn by him as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent was the point that arose for decision in the O.A. Relying on Annexure-A1 order of appointment wherein there was a condition that his past service will count towards the qualifying service, the C.A.T upheld his claim for pay protection. The Tribunal also relied on its own earlier judgment in O.A.No.704/2004 while rendering the said decision. The petitioners challenge the said decision of the C.A.T, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4, contending that the facts of the case decided in O.A.No.704/2004 are different. Therefore, the said decision is distinguishable on facts, it is submitted. WPC.NO.10887/2008 . 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Annexure-A6 judgment of the C.A.T, which was produced by the applicant along with Ext.P1 original application. In the said judgment, the circular of D.G. Posts dated 11.2.1997 is extracted. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said circular will support the case of the writ petitioners. In the said circular, it is held that placement of an ED Agent from one post office to another in the same unit will be treated as transfer and the incumbent is entitled to get pay protection. 3. We feel that the said circular will support the case of the applicant. Therefore, he is entitled to get pay protection and his placement shall be treated as transfer as he is posted from one post to another in the same post office. In view of the above position, we find no merit in the writ petition. The Tribunal ordered to grant pay protection to the applicant rightly. We agree with its reasons and conclusions. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.10887/2008 . 3