Allowed

Union of India, Rep by Its v. the Registrar

Madras HC17 Apr 2017WP/30507/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition to quash an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Amar Nath Goyal, which set aside the precedential order relied upon by the Tribunal, the Court held the matter was no longer res integra.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 07 April 2004 passed by the Tribunal is set aside; the Writ Petition is allowed.

Union of India, Rep by Its Vs the Registrar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

¶5

W.P. No. 30507 of 2004 and

¶6

W.M.P. No. 36969 of 2004

¶7

Union of India rep.by its Secretary, Director General of Posts, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai.

¶8

..Petitioners

¶9

¶10

1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai.

¶11

2 A.Kothandan 3 P.S.Seelan 4 G.Narayanasamy 5 A.D.Kamalanathan 6 S.M.Md. Hayath 7 T.S.Venkataraman 8 K.Ramamoorthy 9 P.Balarajeswaran 10 A.Samuel 11 R.K.Rajavelu 12 T.Venkatasubbiah 13 D.Jacob Jesupatham 14 M.Ethirajan 15 W.N.Venkatarao 16 S.Xavier 17 T.C.Narayanasamy 18 D.Antony Cruz 19 K.Varadhan 20 T.R.Thirunavukkarasu 21 A.T.Subramanian 22 C.Saranganathan 23 T.P.Kannan 24 A.L.Kumarasamy

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

25 E.Kothandaraman 26 C.Thirugnanam 27 Naimur Rahuman 28. H.S. Raghunathaprasad 29. K. Narayanasamy 30. G.V. Sugavanam 31. K.R. Muthukumarasamy 32. K.M. Ponnusamy 33. D. Karunanithi 34. K. Pachaiayappan 35. V. Ramakrishnan 36. D. Sambandam 37. M. Kuppusamy 38. M.K. Purushothaman 39. K.N. Saravanan 40. K. Muthu 41. A.K. Sarangapani. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to O.A. No. 835/2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, the 1^st respondent herein, and to quash the order dated 07.04.2004 passed by the 1^st respondent Tribunal in O.A. No. 835/2003.

¶15

For Petitioners: Mr. T.L. Thirumalaisamy, CGC For Respondents: Mr. S. Ramaswamy Rajarajan For RR 2,13,15,17,20,22,24,25, 29,32,34,36,37& 39. O R D E R

¶16

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.

¶17

This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 07 April 2004 in O.A. No. 835 of 2003, whereby and where under the Central Administrative Tribunal was pleased to grant the relief taking into account the decision rendered by the Full Bench of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal dated 21 September 2001 in O.A. Nos. 542, 942 and 943 of 1997.

¶18

When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners by producing the copy of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Others (2005) 6 SCC 754 contended that in view of the said Judgment, setting aside the order dated 21 September 2001, the issue is no longer res-integra.

¶19

We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents 2,13,15,17,20,22,24,25,29,32,34,36,37 & 39.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

The issue raised by the respondents 2 to 41 was decided by the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of the order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal dated 21 September 2001. The said order has already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court along with the similar orders in Amar Nath Goyal case cited supra.

¶22

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and others (2005) 6 SCC 754, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶23

We, therefore, following the judgment in State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Others (2005) 6 SCC 754, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 07 April 2004 in O.A. No. 835 of 2003.

¶24

The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ak/kj To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. + 1 cc to Mr.T.L. Thirumalaisamy, Advocate Sr.22927 + 1 cc to Mrs. Ramaswamy Rajarajan, Advocate Sr.23226 W.P. No. 30507 of 2004 and W.M.P. No. 36969 of 2004 KS(CO) EU 4.5.17

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Union of India, Rep by Its v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, Rep by Its v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India, rep. by the Vs a.Thirumeni

Union of India rep.by Vs S.Babu

Anebousselvane.C. Vs Jawaharlal Institute of

R.Nagarathna Vs Tahsildar

Union of India rep.by Vs E. Karthikeyan

S.Chandru Vs The District Collector