IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34501 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.543/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.PURUSHOTHAMAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) VALUATION CELL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 5TH FLOOR, KANNAMMAI BUILDING, NO.611, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 006. BY SRI.P.P.PURUSHOTHAMAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 011. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (WORKS), CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NIRMANBHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 011. 3. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, INDIRA NAGAR, SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 017. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 34501/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. 543/2006 DATED 31.7.2006. EXT.P2 - REPLY STATEMENT OF RESPONDENTS IN O.A.543/2006 DATED 16.11.2006. EXT.P3 - REJOINDER TO THE REPLY STATEMENT OF RESPONDENTS IN O.A.543/2006 DATED 1.2.2007. EXT.P4 - M.A.841/2007 IN O.A.543/2006 FILED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 12/13.11.07. EXT.P5 - HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE YTRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM EENCH ORDER DATED 18.12.07 IN M.A.841/2007 IN O.A.543/2006 DATED 18.12.2007. EXT.P6 - HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ORDER DT.1.1.2008 IN M.A.841/2007 IN O.A.543/2006. EXT.P7 - M.A.116/08 IN M.A.841/07 IN O.A.543/2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS, SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DT. 1.1.08. EXT.P8 - HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM EENCH ORDER DT. 4.2.2008 IN M.A.116/2008 IN O.A.543/2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS, DISMISSING THE SAME. EXT.P9 - HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL'S FINAL ORDER DATED 27.2.2008 IN O.A.543/2006. EXT.P10 - OFFICE ORDER NO.75/2008 (ISSUED VIDE NO.30/1/2008 – EC-1 DT. 3.3.08, ISSUING AD HOC PROMOTION ORDER) EXT.P11 - APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION DATED 19.3.2008 ADDRESSED TO RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN O.A.543/2006. EXT.P12 - LETTER NO.12/1/2008 – EE(C) CR CELL DT. 3.6.2008 OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF WORKS, CPWD, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110 011. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 34501 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.543/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The said O.A was disposed of by the Tribunal, by Ext.P9 order dated 27.2.2008. Before the C.A.T., the petitioner/applicant raised two grievances. (1) He was superseded in the matter of ad hoc promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. (2) The adverse remarks for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03 in his Annual Confidential Reports should be expunged or at any rate, they should not be relied on, as they were not communicated. During the pendency of the O.A., the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis. Therefore, the grievance regarding ad hoc promotion was substantially redressed. Regarding the second grievance, the C.A.T took the view that the applicant should first move the departmental authorities. Only thereafter, he can move the Tribunal. The Tribunal also gave him an WPC 34501/08 2 opportunity to file a representation and also directed the competent authority to consider his representation in accordance with the rules within one month from the date of receipt of the same and pass a speaking order. 2. The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that he has represented as directed by the C.A.T in March 2008 itself. So far, the competent authority has not considered his representation against the adverse remarks/gradings in his confidential reports for the aforementioned years. If that be so, the petitioner's remedy lies before the C.A.T. If the petitioner has got any grievance regarding the date of effect of the ad hoc promotion, he has to represent against it first and thereafter move the C.A.T. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order of the C.A.T. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the appropriate forum for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Nm/ WPC 34501/08 3