RAJESH.R Vs. JAYA GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed against order dated 2.11.2020 in O.A.(EKM)No.556 of 2020 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The original application was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein. They are working as Upper Division Selection Grade Typists in the Commercial Taxes Department. They filed the original application seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Various contentions were raised by the applicants/respondents 1 and 2 herein in support of their claim for the aforesaid reliefs. The fact is that the Tribunal did not enter into any finding on merits taking into account the pendency of Annexure A11 representation before the Government. The Tribunal disposed of the original application with a direction to the first respondent therein to consider and pass appropriate orders on Annexure A11 representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is against the direction in the impugned order to continue the interim order passed by the Tribunal in the O.A on 6.5.2020 staying operation of Annexure A9, till orders are passed by the first respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that virtually, the petitioner viz., additional 8th respondent was not heard at the time of disposal of the original application. That apart, it is contended that the copy of M.A (EKM) No.1470 of 2020 for acceptance of additional documents was not served on the petitioner. The fact is that the said application was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking for a direction to consider and pass orders on Annexure A11 pending disposal of the original application. Obviously, the Tribunal thought it fit to dispose of the original application itself, with such direction. As noticed hereinbefore, while doing so, the Tribunal did not make any observation touching the merits of the contentions. If the petitioner was not heard at the time of passing of an order and copy of the aforesaid M.A was not served on him, the petitioner could not have filed a review petition, if he is actually aggrieved. Taking note of the fact that the order in the O.A was passed on 2.11.2020 and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6213 of 2018 in Union of India & others v. Chitra Lekha Chakraborthy holding that the Administrative Tribunals got no power to condone the delay in filing review application, no purpose could be served by relegating the petitioner to file review application. Even otherwise, we do not think it necessary to consider such aspects as the impugned order would reveal that the Tribunal only directed for consideration of Annexure A11 representation without touching the merits. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matter requires no material interference.