Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs V.Peethambaran on 7 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
Thursday, the 7th day of July 2022 / 16th Ashadha, 1944
CM.APPL.NO.1/2018 IN RP NO. 914 OF 2018 IN OP(CAT) NO.170/2015
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (CAT) NO 170/2015 DATED 26.10.2015 OF THIS COURT)
---
PETITIONERS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA POSTAL CIRCLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ALAPPUZHA DIVISION, MAVELIKKARA.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. V.PEETHAMBARAN,S/O. VASU, AGED 59 YEARS, MULTI TASKING STAFF,
KAYAMKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT KOOTTUM THEKKETHIL,
KALLIKKAD, ARATTUPUZHA P.O, ALAPPUZHA.
2. N. THULASI, W/O. SUKUMARAN K., AGED 44 YEARS, MULTI TASKING STAFF,
KAYAMKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT MANUNILAYAM,
NANGIARKULANGARA PO., ALAPPUZHA.
3. T. N. LEELAMMA, W/O. V. NANU, AGED 58 YEARS, MULTI TASKING STAFF,
KAYAMKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT NADESSERIL,
OLAKETTIYAMBAIAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
4. G. SUDHARMA, W/O. GOPALAN, AGED 53 YEARS, MULTI TASKING STAFF,
KAYAMKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT CHAKKAMMURI
VADAKKEKANDATHIL, KEELIKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
5. RAVI.K., S/O. KUTTI, AGED 56 YEARS, MULTI TASKING STAFF,
MAVELIKKARA HEAD POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT HARIJAN COLONY, BLOCK NO.
5, UMBERANADU, MAVELIKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
6. A. RAMANKUTTY, S/O. AZHAKAN, AGED 58 YEARS, MULTI TASKING STAFF,
HARIPPAD POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT MALAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL, KARUVATTA
NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to condone the delay
of 747 days in filing the above Review Petition, in the interest of
justice.
This Application coming on for orders on 07/07/2022, upon perusing
the application and the affidavit filed in support of and this court's
judgment dated 26/10/2015 in OP (CAT) 170/2015, and upon hearing the
arguments of SRI.T.V.VINU, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL for the petitioners
and of SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ, ADVOCATE for the respondents, the court passed the
following:
S. MANIKUMAR, C. J. & SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
======================================
C. M. Appln. No. 1 of 2018
&
R. P. No. 914 of 2018
======================================
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2022
ORDER
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Short facts leading to the filing of the review petition are as
hereunder:-
a) This review petition is filed by the petitioners in OP (CAT)
No. 170 of 2015, seeking to review the judgment of this Court dated
26.10.2015.
b) The review petitioners had preferred a Special Leave Petition
against the judgment dated 26.10.2015 in OP (CAT) No.170 of 2015 of
this Court. As per order dated 17.11.2017 in SLP (C) Diary No. 14747
of 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave
Petition, permitting the petitioners to move this Court within 4 weeks,
to consider the matter in the light of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.
90 of 2015 in Y. Najithamol and Ors. v. Soumya S.D. and Ors.
reported in [2016 (4) KHC 280].
C. M. Appln. No. 1 of 2018
& R. P. No. 914 of 2018
4. Instant review petition is filed with a delay of 747 days. Hence
C. M. Appln. No. 1 of 2018 has been filed for condoning the filing
delay.
5. Reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit are as follows:-
"2. The petitioners herein are the petitioners in the above
Review Petition, who are petitioners in OP(CAT) No.170 of
2015, and are seeking to review the judgment of this Hon'ble
Court dated 26.10.2015, in view of Order dated 17.11.2017 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) Diary
No.14747/2017.
3. The Ext.P1-O.A. preferred by the
respondents/applicants was disposed of by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench as per Ext.P5-Order
dated 18.05.2015, whereby the petitioners herein have been
directed to fix the pay of the respondents/applicants from the
dates of their actual joining of duty in the promoted post,
reckoning the notional increments due from the dates of their
notional appointment.
4. Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal was challenged before this
Hon'ble Court in OP (CAT) No. 170 of 2015. This Hon'ble Court,
observed that the Tribunal had allowed the Ext.P1-O.A. as per
Ext P5-order after taking note of the fact that the issue is covered
by the Tribunal's decision in O.A. No. 649 of 2011, which has
been confirmed by this Hon'ble court in O.P(CAT). No. 4162 of
C. M. Appln. No. 1 of 2018
& R. P. No. 914 of 2018
2013. Thus, this Hon'ble Court found that there was no ground to
admit the original petition or to grant any reliefs sought for, and
for the said reason the original petition was dismissed as per
judgment dated 26.10.2015.
5. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners
preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated
26.10.2015 in OP(CAT) No.170 of 2015 of this Hon'ble Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dispose of the special
leave petition permitting the petitioners to move this Hon'ble
Court within 4 weeks to consider the matter in the light of the
judgment in Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2015 in Y. Najithamol and
ors. Vs. Soumya S.D. and Ors. (reported in 2016 (4) KHC 280).
The Order dated 17.11.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in SLP(C) Diary No. 14747/2017 has been produced and
marked in the Review Petition as Annexure 1.
6. Accordingly, the Petitioners have filed the Review
Petition on 12.12.2017, within 4 weeks, with in the time granted
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However there occurred delay in
filing the above Review Petition before the Hon'ble Court due to
the above reasons The Review Petition was noted as defective
and returned by the Registry of this Hon'ble Court on 29.12.2017.
Thereafter the same was represented on 12.01.2018. The Review
Petition was posted before this Hon'ble Court on 12.09.2017, on
which day this Hon'ble Court was pleased to sustain the defect
noted by the registry and ordered that the same be returned for
representation after curing the defect."
C. M. Appln. No. 1 of 2018
& R. P. No. 914 of 2018
6. Mr. M. R. Hariraj, learned counsel for the respondents in O.P.
(CAT) No. 170 of 2015, submitted that the respondents are not in
contact and most of them have retired.
7. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the supporting
affidavit.
8. Delay is condoned. Application is ordered.
Issue notice to the respondents in review petition by speed post,
returnable in two weeks.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
Eb
07-07-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
