Kerala High Court
Deepa. S. Nair vs Union Of India on 7 January, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 204 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2023 IN OA NO.264 OF 2018 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS 1,4 TO 8, 10 TO 15,21,23 TO 25,27 TO 38
IN THE O.A.:
1 DEEPA. S. NAIR
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O A. R. ANILKUMAR, POSTAL ASSISTANT (SB),
PONKUNNAM MDG 686506, RESIDING AT 'DEEPA NIVAS',
THEERTHAPADAPURAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686505
2 SUMI THOMAS
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O JOHN V.S. POSTAL ASSISTANT, ERNAKULAM COLLEGE P O,
RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHENPURACKAL ROAD,
MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O, PIN - 683501
3 RAJASREE S
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O, ANILKUMAR B, POSTAL ASSISTANT, VANCHIYOOR P.O.,
695035, RESIDING AT TC94/3055, MADATHIL VEEDU,
KANNAMOOLA, TRIVANDRUM PETTAH P.O., TRIVANDRUM,
PIN - 695024
4 VIJIMOL GEORGE
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O, SAJAN VARGHESE, ACCOUNTANT, ALAPPUZHA H.O.,
RESIDING AT 'PUTHENPURACKAL', POWER HOUSE WARD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012
5 ASHA A.S.
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O. GOPAKUMAR B, SPM, THIRUMULLAVARAM S O,
RESIDING AT POOMEKHALA, ARSHA NAGAR 1H,
KAVANAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691004
OP (CAT) NO. 204 OF 2023 -2-
2025:KER:1010
6 KALPANA SOMASUNDARAM
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. B. SURESHKUMAR, SPM, THEKKEVILA S O,
RESIDING AT SANTHIBHAVAN, KILIKOLLUR P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691004
7 JEENA R
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. SAJEEVKUMAR M.M. LSG SPM, ULIYAKOVIL PO,
KOLLAM 691 019
RESIDING AT UDAYAM, MYTHRI RESIDENTS, 35A,
KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691008
8 S. SHEEJA
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. C.D MANOJ, SPM, ERAVIPURAM S O 691 011,
KOLLAM, RESIDING AT GOUTHAMAM, MAYYANAD P.O.,
PIN - 691303
9 SILANADHAN B.
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. BERNARD P., POSTAL ASSISTANT (RTD),
KARUNAGAPALLY H O, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT ST.
ANTONY'S DALE, CHERUSSERY BHAGOM, CHAVARA P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691583
10 SINDHU. K
AGED 53 YEARS
D/O. A KRISHNAN, SPM, KOLLAM BAZAR S O,
RESIDING AT LEKSHMIANANDAM, CANTONMENT SOUTH
NAGAR -181, BEACH ROAD KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
11 NANDAKUMAR K.N
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O M. NARAYANAN SUB POSTMASTER, KARAMCODE S O,
RESIDING AT KERALALAYAM, CHIRAKKARA P.O,
KALLUVATHUKKAL KOLLAM, PIN - 691578
12 MINIKUMARY S
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O SURESHKUMAR A, SPM, PERUMPUZHA 691 504,
RESIDING AT VAISAKHOM, EDAKKIDAOM P.O, EZHUKONE
KOLLAM, PIN - 691505
OP (CAT) NO. 204 OF 2023 -3-
2025:KER:1010
13 S. MAHALAKSHMI
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. R. SURAJ, POSTAL ASSISTANT, TRIVANDRUM
CHALAI S O 695 036 RESIDING AT OMKAR, SNA S-74,
SASTHRI NAGAR SOUTH, KARAMANA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN
- 695002
14 B. SREEKALA
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O, M.S. SANILKUMAR, OFFICE ASSISTANT, O/O THE
SSPOS TRIVANDRUM NORTH DIVISION, RESIDING AT
KAUSTHUBHAM, PKRA C 134, KODUNGANNOOR P.O.,
VATTIYURKAVU, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695013
15 SAMUEL G
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O, GEEVARGHESE SAMUEL, POSTAL ASSISTANT,
CHENGANNUR HO, RESIDING AT BETHEL, ORIPURAM,
CHENNITHALA P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690105
16 SHUBHA C.S
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O R, GANESH, SUB POSTMASTER, AZHIYIDATHUCHIRA
S O, RESIDING AT CHANDRALAYAM, PERINGARA P. O.,
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689108
17 MEENAKSHI AMMAL S
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O M.S. MANI, POSTAL ASSISTANT, TRIVANDRUM
FORT P.O, RESIDING AT TC 28/1216-2,
SREEKANTESWARAM, TRIVANDRUM FORT P.O., PIN -
695023
18 R.P. SANDEEP
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O, E.N. RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI, PUBLIC RELATIONS
INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GPO 695 001
RESIDING AT SANGEETHA, ANRA - 16,
MAVARTHALAKONAM, SREEKARIYAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM,
PIN - 695017
19 RANJITHANAND BHAT N
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANA VADHYAR R, SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GPO, RESIDING AT TC 20/2634,
SS STREET, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
OP (CAT) NO. 204 OF 2023 -4-
2025:KER:1010
PIN - 695002
20 APARNA D.R
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. PRASANTH KUMAR VARMA, POSTAL ASSISTANT,
PATTOM PALACE P.O. 695 004, TRIVANDRUM,
RESIDING AT CORDON, SREEVALSAM - 2D,
PIPPINMOOD, PEROORKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN -
695005
21 AJITHA. V.R
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. SUNIL M.S, POSTAL ASSISTANT, TVM
UNIVERSITY SO, DN,214, RESIDING AT SREEPADMAM,
DARSHAN NAGAR, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, TRIVANDRUM, PIN
- 695043
22 REMA SANKAR V
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O, SURESHKUMAR R. OFFICE ASSISTANT, O/O. THE
SSPOS, TRIVANDRUM NORTH DIVISION, RESIDING AT
KKRA 23, SREENIKET, THYCAUD P.O., TRIVANDRUM,
PIN - 695014
23 KAVITHA G.S
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O ASOKAN K.R, POSTAL ASSISTANT, TRIVANDRUM
GPO, RESIDING AT T.C. 5/1174(1) SRADHA SURVEY
SCHOOL ROAD, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -
695005
24 P. SANTHY
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O M.G. RAJKUMAR, POSTAL ASSISTANT, VANCHIYOOR
P.O., RESIDING AT TC 4/2059(3)/DAFFODILS,
KURAVANKONAM, KOUDIAR P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -
695003
25 MAYA C.V
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O, GANESH KUMAR B. POSTAL ASSISTANT,
TRIVANDUM UNIVERSITY P.O., TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING
AT VIJAYALAYAM, JAI NAGAR, JRA 417, THIRUMALA
P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695006
OP (CAT) NO. 204 OF 2023 -5-
2025:KER:1010
26 T.S. LEELA
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O R. GOPALAKRISHNAN, LSG SPM, POWDIKONAM
695588, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT PRA-A-45,
PANCHAJANYAM, SAMSKARA LANE, POWDIKONAM,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695588
27 JAYA S
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O, K.K. SUNILKUMAR, LSG SPM, CHERUNNIYUR P O
695 142, RESIDING AT PRITHVI, CHERIYANNOOR
P.O.,, PIN - 695142
28 H. LETHA
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O, L GANAPATHY, POSTAL ASSISTANT,
VALLAKKADAVU S O RESIDING AT FLAT 1D, SHREYAS
APARTMENTS, VALLAKADAVU P.O.,TRIVANDRUM., PIN -
695008
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.
VIVEK A.V.
AMMU M.
SREEHARI V.S.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 UNION OF INDIA OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA/
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS,
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT,
SANCHAR BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001
2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
OP (CAT) NO. 204 OF 2023 -6-
2025:KER:1010
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN -
686101
5 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
KOLLAM DIVISION, KOLLAM, PIN - 679335
6 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
TRIVANDRUM NORTH DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -
695001
7 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
ERNAKULAM DIVISION, ËRNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
8 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
IDUKKI DIVISION, THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685608
9 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
THIRUVALLA DIVISION, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
10 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
ALAPPUZHA DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688009
11 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
ALUVA DIVISION, ALUVA, PIN - 683101
BY ADV
K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR, CGC
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT) NO. 204 OF 2023 -7-
2025:KER:1010
JUDGMENT
AMIT RAWAL, J.
1. The present O.P.(CAT) is directed against the
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated
10.05.2023 rendered in O.A.No.264 of 2018 whereby the
following claim of the petitioners has been rejected on
the ground of delay and laches.
"(i) to call for the records relating to
annexure a-1 to a-11 and to declare that the
applicants are entitled to be posted as postal
assistants with effect from the date on which
their batch mates are appointed i.e. in may
1996, at least notionally, with all consequential
benefits including arrears of salary;
(ii) to direct the respondents to notionally
appoint the applicants as postal assistants with
effect from may 1996 and to reckon their pay
with effect from the month of may, notionally,
with all consequential benefits including
seniority;
or in the alternative
(iii) to direct the respondents to step up the pay
2025:KER:1010
of the applicants on par with the postal
assistants recruited in 1996 may and to revise
their pay and all other consequential benefits
including seniority;
(iv) to pass such other orders or directions as
deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
and
(v) to award costs of this proceedings."
2. Succinctly the facts in brief for adjudication of
the controversy are enumerated herein below:
Applicants along with other candidates after
having been selected for the post of Postal Assistants
were required to undergo the training. The training at
the instance of the department was postponed which was
assailed before the Central Administrative Tribunal in
various applications, including O.A.No.500 of 1996. The
interim order earlier granted was varied and it was
clarified that the training will go on but the appointment
in pursuance to that will be subject to the final orders in
the original applications. Thereafter vide Annexure A6,
2025:KER:1010
the aforementioned O.A.No.500 of 1996 preferred by one
Maya S.Kumar was disposed of on the ground that the
matter was not be interfered with. In the meantime,
another round of litigation in O.A.Nos.554 of 1996, 562
of 1996 and 571 of 1996 had also arisen by alleging the
delay on the part of the Union of India for deputing them
for training and the stand of the Union of India was with
regard to the interim order in O.A.No.500 of 1996. The
Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated
03.07.1996 Annexure A7 disposed of all the O.A.s on the
ground of the assurance given by the Union of India that
owning to the reason of delay in training the seniority
will not be adversely effected. In other words, it was
made clear that the appointment will be made against
the vacancies in each division.
3. Learned Tribunal noticing these facts,
observed that even if the appointments are delayed due
to delay in training it shall relate back to the date of
occurrence of the vacancy. In other words the delay in
training will not effect the seniority viz-a-viz those in the
2025:KER:1010
same batch trained earlier and appointed in other
divisions.
4. The petitioners - applicants were sanguine of
the fact that though they were not sent to the training
viz-a-viz the other batch who had already undergone
training, would be placed as per the respective seniority
because respondents had not come out with any final
Gradation/seniority List, but were flabbergasted to notice
that the persons who were appointed and had undergone
training before them were granted one increment. In
other words, they acquired that the date of appointment
of the applicants have been taken as August, 1996
whereas of the others who had undertaken training
before, May, 1996. In the absence of any decision
applicants were constrained to approach the tribunal
vide O.A.No.264 of 2008. Learned tribunal on analysis of
the evidence rejected the case of the applicants
primarily on the ground of doctrine akin to delay and
laches and by taking into consideration the reply of the
Union of India of finalization of the Gradation List in
2025:KER:1010
2008. In other words, the applicants failed to give
explanation from May, 1996 or at the best from 2008 till
2012 when the representation was submitted and having
not availed the legal rights for almost more than two
decades, rejected the claim.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that on examination of paragraph
Nos.18, 19 and 20 of the order dated 10.05.2023 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal it is evident that the
tribunal has not taken into consideration the observation
dated 03.07.1996 of the tribunal Annexure A7, wherein,
in the previous round of litigation the O.A.s were
disposed of on the ground of the assurance given by the
respondents for maintaining the seniority at par with the
persons who had undergone training prior to the
applicants, thus there is an abdication.
6. On the other hand, Mr.K.S.Prenjith Kumar,
learned Central Government Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Union of India supported the findings of the
tribunal by relying upon the averments in the counter
2025:KER:1010
regarding the preparation of the Gradation List 2010 and
in the absence of any objection of the applicants the
order of the tribunal dismissing the claim on the ground
of delay and laches, cannot be gone into while exercising
the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and appraised the paper book.
8. The selection of the applicants viz-a-viz the
other persons as Postal Assistant were not in dispute.
Only dispute is that some persons who were selected for
the post of Postal Assistant in the same batch had been
sent to the training for being allocated to the separate
divisions whereas the applicants were made to suffer on
the ground of litigation as noticed above. Noticing the
predicament of the applicants-petitioners, the tribunal in
the order dated 03.07.1996 Annexure A7 had on
assurance of the Union of India protected the interest of
the applicants. The same reads as under:
"Applicants selected for appointment as
Postal Assistants, are aggrieved by the
2025:KER:1010
postponement of the pre-appointment training
for those appointed as Postal Assistants.
2. Examinations for selection as Postal
Assistants were held in different Divisions, for
candidates registered with Employment
Exchanges in those Divisions. Applicant in
0.A.500/96 approached us complaining about
restricting the examination to those registered
within a Division. We have disposed of that
application. The interim order therein, created
some confusion in the minds of the authorities
and that led to postponement of the training.
Learned counsel for applicants in 0.A.554/96
argued with considerable vehemence, that
postponement of training would adversely affect
the service prospects of his clients. According to
him, delay would lead to loss of seniority, as
those trained earlier would get appointments
earlier. Learned counsel for respondents
assures us, that by reason of delay in training,
seniority will not be adversely affected.
Appointments will be made against the
vacancies in each Divisions. Perhaps one way of
preventing loss of seniority is by granting
seniority with reference to the date of
occurrence of the vacancy to which a candidate
is appointed, irrespective of the date of
completion of training. Ordinarily, after training
candidates are appointed to ascertained
vacancies. Even if appointment is delayed, due
2025:KER:1010
to delay in training, if appointment is dated
back to the arising of the vacancy, delay in
training will not affect seniority vis-a-vis those
in the same batch trained earlier and appointed
in other Divisions. Department will ensure that
delay in holding the training will not act to the
detriment of appointees.
3. Applications are disposed of as
aforesaid. No costs."
9. Though sanguine of the fact that the
respondents will assign appointment along with the other
candidates who had already undergone training and
given appointment in May, 1996, applicants were given
appointment in August, 1996. The stand of the Union of
India of having not taken any objection would be of no
meaning for the reason that the copy of the alleged
Gradation List has not seen the light of the day much less
whether it was rightly notified and published to all the
employees to raise objections or otherwise. The cause of
action accrued in favour of the applicants only when it
was realized that the candidates who had undergone the
selection process and given the postings from a prior
2025:KER:1010
date had been given the increment, ignoring the
applicants in 2012. All these factors, if looked
cumulatively, in our considered view, cannot be thrown
out on the ground of delay and laches for, it was the
paramount duty of the respondents to comply with the
order dated 03.07.1996 Annexure A7.
10. We would be failing in our duty in not
extracting the relevant portion of the findings of the
Administrative Tribunal rendered in paragraph Nos.18,
19 and 20 of the order impugned, dated 10.05.2023. The
same reads as under:
"18. We have carefully considered these
different contentions and statements filed by
both sides in the OA. In regard to the alleged
slackness on part of the respondents in sending
the applicants herein for induction training
consequent to the series of interim orders
issued by this Tribunal starting with OA
No.500/1996, we do not see it as that very self
evident. Indeed, if the interim orders passed by
this Tribunal were properly followed by all
Postal Divisions, it would have actually stopped
all the new recruits from being sent for the
training. It appears that some of the Divisions
either did not receive these orders or it might
2025:KER:1010
have reached them late. Whatever be the case,
some of the newly recruited Postal Assistants
were indeed sent to the PTC, Mysore in May
1996 for training by some Divisions, whereas,
the Divisions where the applicants were located
did not allow them to proceed. In passing, we
observe that all this will establish, if it needed to
be again established any more, the infallible
reasoning behind the Hon'ble Apex Court's
various judgements, that Tribunals and Courts
have to be extra careful before passing interim
orders, which without due consideration have
the effect of creating even more unforeseen and
complicated consequences. This is particularly
relevant in Service matters. Anyway, after a
careful consideration of the facts, we have
reached the conclusion that neither side can
really be blamed for the outcome in this matter.
This has indeed affected the applicants, to some
extent, as their services have been counted from
dates in November 1996, as compared to others
who joined a few months earlier. However, at
the same time, as pointed out by the
respondents, awhole series of relevant issues
are relevant for taking into consideration
including the fact that appointment and
seniority of Postal Assistants is Division wise not
Circle wise, before any orders can be passed. In
other words, any so called corrective orders
could only create more issues affecting settled
seniority, etc by initiating consequential actions.
2025:KER:1010
19. We are strongly also persuaded in our
thinking by the judgements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that, if aggrieved by the
seniority assigned the same should be contested
and finalized within first 3 or 4 years of service
and not later. This is the clear impact of the
judgements passed in the case of K.R. Mudgal
(Supra) and reiterated in Shiba Shankar
Mohapatra (Supra) cited earlier. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has made it crystal clear, that a
seniority list which remains in existence for 3-4
years should be taken as settled. Thus a period
of 3-4 years is taken as a reasonable period for
challenging seniority. In case someone agitates
the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has
to explain the delay and latches in approaching
the adjudicatory forum by furnishing a
satisfactory explanation. In this case we find no
convincing explanation as to why the matter
was not agitated earlier, as the applicants very
well knew on the date of their joining service,
after writing the same examination, that others
who wrote the same examination had joined
earlier. They waited atleast 16 years from 1996
till 2012 before making their first application to
the respondents. The only ground taken by them
for this delay was the impact of the OM of the
Ministry of Finance came at that time. However,
the question of their date of joining and its
seniority implication were already settled by
then. The argument of the respondents, that
2025:KER:1010
there was no illegality done in their case
because the seniority list of the Postal Assistant
is always maintained at the Division level and
not Circle level (State Level) is also acceptable
here. It is also clear the Division wise inter-se-
seniority was correctly maintained and the
applicants were not made to suffer on that
score.
20. Thus, we find that all these issues are being
agitated on a much later date, which is not
acceptable. As pointed out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the S.S. Balu case(supra) it
is a well settled principle of law that 'delay
defeats equity'. After approaching this Tribunal
after such a long delay without an acceptable
explanation, it will be thus incorrect for this
Tribunal to relook into issues which are settled.
Hence it is not possible at this length of time to
interfere by disturbing settled seniority
positions without, as was mentioned, creating
ripple effects down the line. There could be a
strong sense of uncertainty if any directions in
favour of the applicants are passed in the OA
and we are conscious of this aspect."
11. On examination of the above findings, there is
no reference of Annexure A7. Perhaps the said order
would have been looked into, the O.A. filed by the
2025:KER:1010
petitioners would have been allowed and the respondent
Union of India would have been before us. For the
reason aforementioned, we, thus, set aside the order of
the tribunal. O.A. is allowed, applicants are entitled to
the benefits as sought for.
O.P.(CAT) stands allowed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
vv
2025:KER:1010
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 204/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.
B/42/RECTT/96 DATED 23.04.1996 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.
B1/42/RECTT/85 DATED 25.04.1996 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. B1/23
DATED 30.04.1996 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. B1/23
DATED 02.05.1996 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.05.1996
OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO. 500/1996 ALONG WITH
ITS TYPED COPY
ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.07.1996
OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ORIGINAL
ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.07.1996
OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN P.A. NO.
554,562 AND 571/1996.
ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. B1/23
DATED 30.07.1996 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. NO.
10/02/2011-E.III/A DATED 19.03.2012
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
EXPENDITURE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE.
ANNEXURE A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 20.06.2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
2025:KER:1010
ANNEXURE A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 18.10.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARISON CHART OF
THE PAY DRAWN BY THE 1ST APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT OM NO.
35034/3/2008-ESTT(D) DATED 19.05.2009.
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
APPLICATION IN OA 264/2018 FILED
BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLAY STATEMENT
FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 11 DATED
21.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS DATED
20.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY
STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
DATED 17.01.2020
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.06.2008 IN OA 314/2007 BEFORE THE
HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.10.2015 IN OP(CAT) 142/2015.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
16.12.2010 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
(CC 18773-18774/2010).
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
25.07.2011 IN CP NO. 79/2009 IN OA
314/2007.
