IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21687 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------ OA.194/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE BSNL, CORPORATE OFFICE, REP. BY HIS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUMBAI. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DISTRICT, BSNL, KOLLAM. 5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, (PHONES), VALLIKAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN.T, PRAKASH BHAVAN, CHUNAKKARA NORTH P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 534. BY ADV. GEORGE VARGHESE PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.21687 of 2010-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the OA filed by the respondent. The respondent laid claim for the benefit of the Scheme providing for dying-in-harness. Respondent's father died on 18.9.2006. His application dated 26.6.2007 came to be rejected vide order dated 20.2.2008 and he challenged the same before the Tribunal. Apparently, the rejection of the application was premised on the promulgation of a new Scheme. The Tribunal took the view that the respondent is entitled to have his application considered with reference to the Scheme that existed on the date of application. It is the said order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is not in dispute that in a similar matter a Division Bench of this Court has accepted the reasoning of the Tribunal and rejected the writ petition. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the matter is WPC No.21687/2010 -2- pending before the Supreme Court where it is stayed. 3. The matter relates to dying-in-harness. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that there remains question of delay. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would point out that under Sec.21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on the strength of an application to condone the delay, delay was condoned. More importantly, we take note of the fact that the matter relates to dying-in-harness and we do not think interest of justice would be subserved by entertaining this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS