IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2457 of 2007(S) ------------------------- OA.235/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER/APPLICANT: R.T.L.D'SOUZA, PRESENTLY DEPUTY SECRETARY (ENVIRONMENT), GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH DR.K.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI,REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI, DELHI SECRETARIAT, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110 002. 3. LT. GOVERNOR,GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI, RAJ NIWAS, DELHI. 4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN, DHOLPUR HOUSE, NEW DELHI. 5. THE ADMINISTRATOR,UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, SECRETARIT, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP-682 555. ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN, CGC SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC FOR R5 SRI.N.MANOJKUMAR FOR R2,3 SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH FOR R4 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASG FOR R1-3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.2457 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Petitioner who was member of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Service had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam bench with the grievance that he had not been placed at the appropriate rank position in the seniority list. Though he had approached the authority concerned ventilating the above grievance, his claim was rejected as revealed from Annexures A1 and A2. Therefore, he prayed before the Tribunal that Annexures A1 and A2 be quashed and a declaration be granted that he is entitled to be placed at rank No.20 in the seniority list. He further prayed that the Union Public Service Commission be directed to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee “to consider his case for all due promotions which he might have lost” in his career. 2. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, quashed Annexures A1 and A2 orders issued by the Government of National Capital territory of Delhi and directed petitioner to submit a fresh representation highlighting his grievance and outlining his demand “in terms of the rules, rulings and instructions”. The respondents were directed to take a decision on the representation within two months from the date of receipt of the same. It was further directed that the authority concerned shall pass a speaking order on each one of the points/claims raised by the W.P.(C)No.2457 OF 2007 :: 2 :: petitioner indicating the “underlying rules/rulings and instructions for such decisions”. A true copy of the said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.235/2003 is on record as Ext.P1. 3. It may at once be noticed that the Tribunal had disposed of the above Original Application on December 7, 2005. Admittedly the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi has complied with the direction issued by the Tribunal and passed Ext.P3 order on March 24, 2006 as could be seen from Ext.P3 order, of course rejecting the claim made by the petitioner in his representation. 4. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging not only Ext.P1 order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.235/03 (Ext.P1) but also the order passed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi contending inter alia that the above orders are totally illegal and vitiated. 5. We do not propose to refer to or deal with the various contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage for the obvious reason that the petitioner has missed his bus on the way. It is fairly conceded by the petitioner that the proper remedy for him to challenge Ext.P3 order lies before the Central Administrative Tribunal itself. But according to him certain observations made by the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order may hamper his chances of getting any relief from the Tribunal. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the Tribunal had committed serious error in interpreting the relevant rules. Learned counsel has invited our attention to some of the rules, which according W.P.(C)No.2457 OF 2007 :: 3 :: to him, would govern the field. We refrain from dealing with that question, yet again for the reason that this is not the forum for the petitioner to raise those contentions. 6. As has been noticed already, the Tribunal had passed Ext.P1 order way back in December 2005. Petitioner had not chosen to challenge the said order till he filed this writ petition two years thereafter. More importantly, he had accepted Ext.P1 verdict of the Tribunal and submitted the representation before the competent authority which in turn had passed Ext.P3 order. 7. In that view of the matter also, we are afraid the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief from this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service, we do not impose any cost on him. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies available to him under law before the appropriate forum, if he is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order. Since the petitioner had challenged Ext.P3 order before this court within a period of one year, the Tribunal may take a lenient view as far as delay is concerned. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes