Antony Dominic, J. Respondents in OA No.34/13 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners. By its order dated 28th of November, 2013, Tribunal disposed of the OA directing the scrutiny committee to finalise the proceedings against the applicant within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in the OA. Appellants were also directed to pass consequential orders, on finalisation of the proceedings by the scrutiny committee, as directed above. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is challenged before us.
2. The respondent/applicant retired from the Public Works Department as Superintending Engineer on 31/5/2000. He is granted only provisional pension on the allegation that he does not belong to scheduled caste community of Moger. That dispute is pending consideration of the scrutiny committee. Since there was inordinate delay in the matter, OA was filed by him before the Tribunal. Taking note of the facts as above, the Tribunal disposed of
OP(KAT) No.378/14
: 2 :
the OA directing finalisation of the proceedings against the applicant by the scrutiny committee within four months.
3. Learned Government Pleader raised two contentions.
One is that though scrutiny committee was impleaded as additional 4th respondent in the OA, the scrutiny committee is not shown as respondent in the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned Government Pleader also contended that this Court has also directed the scrutiny committee to finalise the proceedings and that therefore, the direction in the Tribunal's order was unnecessary.
4. In so far as the first objection that the scrutiny committee is not arrayed as respondent in Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal is concerned, though the contention is factually correct, this being only a clerical error, if at all the government have such a grievance, it is for them to move an application before the Tribunal so that the said omission can be corrected by the Tribunal itself.
5. It may be true that this Court has already directed the scrutiny committee to finalise the proceedings. However, the order passed by the Tribunal does not show that the same was
OP(KAT) No.378/14
: 3 :
brought to the notice of the Tribunal. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal has passed the order in question. Therefore, we do not think that this contention raised by the Government Pleader justifies interference of the order passed by the Tribunal.
OP(KAT) is dismissed.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE