IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1951 of 2009(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. W.RICHARD PRADEEPAM, S/O.LATE WILLIAMS, AGED 62 YEARS, RAJESH BHAVAN, POOZHANADU P.O. VIA O.S. MANAGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RADHAKRISNAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, NETTARAVILOKAM, VETTAMPALLI, P.O. IRINCHAYAM. 3. ASHARAM BAGHOTIA, S/O.GANESHA RAM, AGED 55 YEARS, BIHALI VILLAGE, AATTELI TEHSIL, MAHENDRA GARH DISTRICT, HARAYANA STATE. 4. R.S.N.NAIR, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS, PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. K.M.KUNHIRAMAN S/O. A.K. RAMAN PANICKER, AGED 56 YEARS, KIZHAKKE MADATHIL HOUSE, CHEPPANOOL, P.O.MUYYAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. P.NANU, S/O.KANNAN, RAJITHALAYAM, KOLAPPA, P.O.PATTANUR, EDAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 7. C.J.JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, THADATHIL HOUSE AYAMKUDY P.O. MUTTUCHIRA VIA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (PETITIONERS 1-7 L/NK (DISMISSED FROM SERVICE) CRPF GROUP CENTRE, PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.) BY ADV. MR.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CABINET SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK, PARLIAMENT BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. W.P.(C) NO.1951/2009 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, PARLIAMENT BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRPF, SCOPE COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTHERN SECTOR -1, CPRF HEAD QUARTERS, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. COMMANDANT, GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF),PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. COMMANDANT, 56 BATTALIAN, STATIONED AT PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R6 BY ADV. MR.P.R.LESLIE STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.1951 of 2009 -G ------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Leslie Stephen, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners were recruited to the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1965. While they were working at Pallippuram in Thiruvananthapuram District, they were dismissed from service with effect from 25.6.1979, pursuant to their participation in the agitation held by personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force during the period from 25.6.1979 to 13.8.1979. The pleadings disclose that 1184 persons were thus dismissed from service. The petitioners challenged the orders of dismissal before the appellate authority. The appeals were rejected. Thereafter they moved this Court by filing O.P.No.3736 of 1980 and connected cases. The said writ petitions were transferred to Supreme Court and heard along with other similar cases filed by other personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force who were likewise dismissed from service. The writ petitions were dismissed by the Apex Court as per the decision in Union of India V. Tulasiram Patel (1985(3) SCC 398). The said judgment has become final. 3. It appears that some of the persons who were similarly dismissed had moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The writ petition filed by them was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appeal therefrom filed by the Union of India and others was dismissed. The SLP filed by the Union of India from the said judgment was dismissed by the Apex Court by Ext.P6 order passed on 6.5.2003. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek the benefits flowing from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, namely payment of back wages and pension. In my opinion, the claim made by the petitioner is plainly untenable. The rights of the petitioners stand concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India V. Tulasiram Patel (supra). The decision of the Apex Court attained finality about 25 years back. This Court cannot therefore entertain this writ petition or grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab