IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8786 of 2010(S) ------------------------- OA.368/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SENA BHAVAN, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE AIR FORCE OFFICER IN CHARGE (ADMINISTRATION) AIR HEADQUARTERS, VAYU BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL CIVILIAN, AIR HEADQUARTERS, VAYU BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 4. AIR OFFICER, COMMANDING IN CHIEF, HQ, SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND, I.A.F AKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 031. 5. COMMANDING OFFICER, SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND (UNIT), A.F AKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 031. BY ADV. SHRI.JAMES KURIAN, CGC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.S. MANI, TELEPHONE OPERATOR GR.I (RETIRED), HQ SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND (UNIT) AF, AKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 031. RESIDING AT ALEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPORT.P.O, ERNAKULAM - 683 515. W.P.(C).8786/10 2. K.G. SUDHIR, TELEPHONE SUPERVISOR (RETIRED) HQ SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND (UNIT), AF, AKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 031, RESIDING AT T.C 8/822, SURABHI, GO GOWRINAGAR, PONGUMMOODE, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.8786 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. Having regard to the nature of the directions we propose to issue, notice to the respondents is dispensed with, reserving their right to seek re-hearing of this writ petition, if they are aggrieved. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners quite elaborately on the different aspects of the matter. 3. As per the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held that the benefits provided in Annexure A13 order ought to be made available to Telephone Operators in the IAF also. The decision has been rendered with reference to the terms of paragraph 126.5 of the report of the Vth Central Pay Commission and also the different decisions of the Apex Court as well as the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the mode of recruitment of Telephone Operators and other attendant facts and circumstances do not justify W.P.(C)No.8786 of 2010 :: 2 :: them being refused the benefits that are available to their counterparts in the Navy. We do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the said finding of the Tribunal. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners point out that the proceeding before the Tribunal was filed only by two persons, while an omnibus direction has been given exceeding the limit of the claim inasmuch as the Tribunal has directed that the benefit of Annexure A13 order be given to the applicants as well as the other Telephone Operators of the IAF, who are similarly situated as the applicants. It is pointed out that the original application was not a representative litigation and there is no scope or jurisdiction to grant such a direction in favour of persons, who were not parties in the original application, who had not made any claim in that regard. To that extent, the learned counsel for the petitioners is right. W.P.(C)No.8786 of 2010 :: 3 :: 5. We may sound a further word of caution on the Central Government that when a principle of law binding a class of people has been passed by an appropriately constituted Tribunal or Court, it has to be taken as a salutary in public interest to follow such principle, unless it is upset through the proper forum, including a superior court. This could exclude unnecessary litigations to different courts and Tribunals particularly seeking reliefs on the basis of judgments which have already been delivered either by a statutory Tribunal or even by the High Courts and Apex Court. There is constitutional supports for this view. 6. Yet, having regard to the fact that the Central Administrative Tribunal is one constituted under the Administrative Tribunal's Act and Government is not acceding to the general direction given, we are inclined to modify the sentence in the impugned order that W.P.(C)No.8786 of 2010 :: 4 :: the benefit of Annexure A13 order shall be extended to the Telephone Operators in the IAF, other than the applicants therein. 7. It is, therefore, ordered that the benefit of Annexure A13 order shall be applicable only to the applicants in the original application, who are respondents in this writ petition. The impugned judgment, Ext.P4, will stand modified accordingly. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.