Vinod Kumar and Others vs M.S. Faruqi and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—The Petitioners feeling aggrieved by their retrenchment approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing original application. It appears that it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The petitioners approached this Court by filing CWP No. 1524/2002. The retrenchment of the petitioner was held illegal and void ab initio vide judgment dated 16.5.2008. The Department of Telecommunication filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 16.5.2008 bearing LPA No. 68 of 2008. It was dismissed on 18.8.2008. Thereafter, SLP was filed by the Department. It was disposed of on 11.3.2011. The petitioners had filed contempt petition No. 46/2008. It was disposed of by this Court taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 11.3.2011 on 23.5.2011. It appears that the petitioners also filed contempt petition before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The same was withdrawn on 3.9.2012 by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners for taking other recourse available to them. Thereafter, the petitioners again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1099-HP-2012. It was also withdrawn on 17.5.2013.

There is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has only made observation in the judgment rendered in SLP that the petitioners will be reinstated and the benefit of continuity shall be given to them for the purpose of pension only. In view of this, petitioners cannot seek seniority from the date anterior to their reinstatement. Accordingly, the present petition does not fall within the ambit of order 47 rule 1 of the CPC and the same is dismissed. No costs.