ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are Junior Health Inspectors Grade-
II. They claimed the benefit of Anneuxre-A1 Government Order. However, by Annexure-A9 order, the claim was rejected by the Government. Challenging Annexure-A9 order, the petitioners filed O.A.No.1680 of 2012 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
3. During the pendency of the Original Application Annexure-A12 order was passed by the Government, cancelling Annexure-A1. Thereupon, Original Application was amended and Annexure-A12 was also challenged. In Ext.P8 order disposing of the Original Application, the Tribunal found that Annexure-A12 cancelling Annexure-A1 order was void for O.P.(KAT).No.384 of 2014 2 the reason it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal therefore directed that the Government shall re-consider the matter with notice to the affected parties after affording them an opportunity of hearing. It was also ordered that Annexure-A12 should be treated as a proposal. It is challenging Ext.P8 order, this Original Petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel contended that once the Tribunal held Annexure-A12 order to be void, the Tribunal should not have remitted the matter back to the Government for re-consideration in the manner as ordered. We are unable to accept this contention. As we have already stated the Tribunal held Annexure-12 void for the reason it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. When an order is held vitiated for non compliance of the principles of natural justice, the authority, which passed the order, is entitled to reconsider the matter and take a fresh decision in compliance with the principles of natural justice. It was, therefore, that the Tribunal directed that the matter should be reconsidered O.P.(KAT).No.384 of 2014 3 in compliance with the principles of natural justice, by issuing notice to the affected parties, after affording them an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal was not acting illegally in remitting the matter to the Government for reconsideration, after holding the order to be a void one. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P8.
5. However, taking note of the fact one month period specified by the Tribunal to file representations against Annexure-A12 has already expired, we direct that the petitioners shall file their representation, at any rate, within a period of 3 weeks from today and the Government shall finalise the matter as ordered by the Tribunal within three months thereafter.
The O.P.(KAT) is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj