OP (CAT) No. 1 of 2017 (Z)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/20TH POUSHA, 1938** ## **OP (CAT).No. 1 of 2017 (Z)** **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.10.2016 IN OA NO.180/00831/2016 AND ORDER DATED 4.10.2016 IN MA NO.1087/2016 IN OA NO.180/00831/2016 AND ORDER DATED 3.11.2016 IN R.A.NO.60/2016 AND 51/2016 IN OA NO.180/00831 OF 2016 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS/REVIEW APPLICANTS:** **-------------** ## **1. P.SUKUMARAN NAIR** **S/O.LATE P.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, SORTING ASSISTANT, SUB RECORD OFFICE, PALAKKAD, RMS 'CT' DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, ATHANIPPARMBU, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD 678002** ## **2. K.P.MADHAVAN** **S/O.THE LATE THEYYAN, AGED 59 YEARS, SORTING ASSISTANT, SUB RECORD OFFICE, TIRUR, RMS 'CT' DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT KILIYILAPARAMBIL, THANALUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676307** ## **3. KRISHNANKUTTY C.K** **S/O. THE LATE THANIYAN, AGED 55 YEARS, SORTING ASSISTANT, HEAD RECORD OFFICE, RMS 'CT' DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT CHEPPAKUNIYIL, IRIVALLUR, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE 673616** ## **4. P.R. BALAKRISHNAN** **S/O.THE LATE RAMAN, AGED 55 YEARS, SORTING ASSISTANT, HEAD RECORD OFFICE, RMS 'CT' DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING PUTHENMUTTOM, THARIOLE, POZHUTHANA VIA, WAYANAD 673575** ## **5. C.SIVADASAN** **S/O.THE LATE K. ACHUTHAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, SORTING ASSISTANT, HEAD RECORD OFFICE, RMS 'CT' DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT 'SISIRAM', MAKKADA, KAKKODE PO, KOZHIKODE 673611** **OP (CAT).No. 1 of 2017 (Z)** ## **6. M.K.SREEKUMAR** **S/O.THE LATE K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, SORTING ASSISTANT, HEAD RECORD OFFICE, RMS 'CT' DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT 'SOUPARNIKA', KOLATHARA PO, KOZHIKODE 673655** ## **7. K.CHANDRAN** **S/O.THE LATE K.P.KANDANKUTTY, AGED 59 YEARS, SORTING ASSISTANT, SUB RECORD OFFICE, PALAKKAD, RMS 'CT' DIVISION, RESIDING AT 'MANJURAM', THIRD LANE, PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PO, PALAKKAD 678731** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **--------------** ## **1. SUPERINTENDENT** **RMS 'CT' DIVISION, KOZHIKODE 673032** **2. POSTMASTER GENERAL NORTHERN REGION, KOZHIKODE 673011** **3. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033** ## **4. UNION OF INDIA** **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI 110001** ## **BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA** ## **SMT. MINI R. MENON, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **OP (CAT).No. 1 of 2017 (Z)** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **----------------------EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OA.NO. 831/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS** **ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.B.II/RECTT/MM/78 DATED 10.11.1978 OF THE SRO, RMS 'EK' DN.SHORNUR** **ANNEXURE A 2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.1987 IN TA K-168/1987 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL** **ANNEXURE A 3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B-46/88 DATED 12.5.1988 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A 4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B-46-A/86-87 DATED 10.3.1989 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A 5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B1/19/TBOP/X1 DATED 19.7.1999 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A 6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B1/19/TBOP/X DATED 16.8.1999 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A 7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B1/130/MACP/CORR II DATED 11.7.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO SRO/RECTT/MM/83-84 DATED 27.8.1983 OF THE SUB RECORD OFFICER, RMS, TIRUR** **ANNEXURE A9- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B-46/85 DATED 31.7.1989 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A10- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B1/19/TBOP/XIV DATED 23.9.2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A11- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B1/135/MACP II, III/2013-14 DATED 16.7.2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A12- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29.11.1990 OF THE SUB RECORD OFFICER, RMS CT DIVISION, KUTTIPPURAM** **ANNEXURE A13- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B-46/A/VOL.II DATED 6.5.1996 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A14- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B1/136/MACP/CORR II DATED 30.7.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **OP (CAT).No. 1 of 2017 (Z)** **ANNEXURE A15- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B-11/RECTT/MM/91 DATED 22.3.1991 OF THE SRO, RMS 'CT DN. SHORNUR** **ANNEXURE A16- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B-46/A/VOL.II DATED 24.5.1996 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A17- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.HRO/RECTT/88-89 DATED 25.2.1989 OF THE HEAD RECORD OFFICER, RMS CT DIVISION , KOZHIKODE 12** ## **ANNEXURE A18- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B-II/SA/APTT/97 DATED 23.5.1997 OF THE IST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A19- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.SRO/RECTT/MM/90-91 DATED 10.10.1990 OF THE SUB RECORD OFFICER, RMS CT DIVISION TIRUR-1** **ANNEXURE A20- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.G/PO DATED 24.9.1981 OF THE INSPECTOR, RMS CT DIVISION, PALAKKAD** **ANNEXURE A21- PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.RECTT/10-3/89-RELAXATION DATED 17.4.1990 OF THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT 'TV' DN. TRIVANDRUM** **ANNEXURE A22- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO. B1/19/TBOP/XV DATED 7.5.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A23- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B1/135/MACP/2012-13 DATED 15.5.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A24- PHOTOCOPY OF THE O.M.NO.35034/3/2008-ESTT.(D) DATED 19.5.2009 ALONGWITH ANNEXURE MACP SCHEME** **ANNEXURE A25- PHOTOCOPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER NO.47/MACPS/2009/-PCC DATED 25.4.2011 OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL (GDS/PCC)** **ANNEXURE A26- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.5.2012 IN OA NO.382 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES** **ANNEXURE A27- PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11336 OF 2012 PUBLISHED IN DAK JAGRITI OCTOBER, 2015** **ANNEXURE A28- PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.8.2014 IN WP(C) NO.4131 OF 2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI PUBLISHED IN DAK JAGRITI, SEPTEMBER, 2015** **ANNEXURE A29- PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.1.2016 OF THE 1ST APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A30- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.B1/135/MACP/2014-15 DATED 11.3.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A31- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.5.2011 IN OA NO.1038/CH/2010 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH.** **OP (CAT).No. 1 of 2017 (Z)** **ANNEXURE A32- PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2011 IN CWP NO.19387 OF 2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA** **ANNEXURE A33- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.4.2013 IN SLP NO.(CC) NO.7467/2013 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA** **ANNEXURE A34- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.8.2012 IN OA NO.624 OF 2012 OF THE CAT PRINCIPAL BENCH** **ANNEXURE A35- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED IN OA NO.816 OF 2012 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL** **ANNEXURE A36- PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.6.2013 IN OP(CAT) NO.2000 OF 2013 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE M.A.NO.1087/2016 JOINT APPLICATION** **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.10.2016 IN M.A.NO.1087 OF 2016 AND IN OA NO.831/2016 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.9.2006 IN O.A.NO.2446 OF 2005 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH** **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE OF INDIAN KANOON** **EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2016 EXCLUDING ANNEXURES** **EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2016 EXCLUDING ANNEXURES** **EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 3.11.2016 IN RA NO.60 AND 61 OF 2016 IN OA NO.180/00831/2016 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** ## **NIL** //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE SHG/ ## **“C.R”** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **========================== O.P.(CAT). No.1 OF 2017 ==========================** Dated this the 10[th] day of January, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** _Ravikumar, J._ This original petition is directed against Ext.P3 order dated 4.10.2016 in M.A.No.1087 of 2016 in O.A.No.180/00831/2016 and Ext.P8 order dated 3.11.2016 in R.A.Nos.60 & 61 of 2016 in the said O.A, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. As per Ext.P3 order, the prayer of the petitioners for joining together to file the O.A in terms of the provisions under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (for short the 'Rules') was declined and consequently, the O.A was closed. It was observed therein that they could file separate applications. They sought for review of Ext.P3 order by filing R.A.Nos.60 and 61 **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 2 of 2016. In fact, R.A.No.60 of 2016 was filed to review and recall the order in O.A.No.180/00831/2016 and to post it for admission ex debito justitiae. R.A.No.61 of 2016 was filed to review and recall order dated 4.10.2016 in M.A.No.1087/2016 and to allow it. The said review applications were dismissed as per Ext.P8 order. It is in the said circumstances that the captioned original petition has been filed mounting challenge against Exts.P3 and P8 orders. 2.For a proper consideration of the original petition, it is only proper and profitable to refer to Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules. It reads thus:- 4(5)(a):Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) to (3) the Tribunal may permit more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause and the nature of relief prayed for that they have a common interest in the matter. 3.A bare perusal of the said rule would reveal that in order to **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 3 grant permission for joining together to file a single application having regard to the cause and the nature of the relief prayed for, they must have a common interest in the subject matter. 4.For considering the question whether in the case on hand Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules is attracted and applicable, it is relevant to refer to the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the O.A. They read thus:- I. to declare that the applicants are legally entitled to get 1[st] , 2[nd] and 3[rd] financial upgradations on completion of 10 years, 20 years and 30 years of service in the entry grade of Sorting Assistant which periods are the term of eligibility for obtaining financial benefits under Annexure A-24 MACP Scheme with effect from 14.06.1983, 01.08.1989, 07.05.1996, 27.05.1996, 27.05.1997, 27.05.1997 and 08.02.1991 respectively and the denial of the same is patently illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India; II.to issue appropriate direction or order, directing the respondents to grant 1[st] , 2[nd] and 3[rd] financial upgradation to the applicants on completion of 10 years, 20 **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 4 years and 30 years of service in the entry grade of Sorting Assistant reckoning their service with effect from 14.06.1983, 01.08.1989, 07.05.1996, 27.05.1996, 27.05.1997, 27.05.1997 and 08.02.1991 respectively based on the promotional hierarchy under Annexure A-24 MACP Scheme and to pay the arrears of pay and allowances and other consequential benefits with effect from their respective dates of entitlement with interest within a time-frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal; - III.to issue appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit, just and proper in the circumstance of the case and - IV.to allow the above O.A. with costs to the applicants. 5.Before delving into the facts to find out whether in the case on hand Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules is applicable or not, we are of the view that it will not be apropos to consider the real scope and object of Rule 4(5)(a). The said provision is virtually the crystallisation of the avowed intent and goal of making litigation less expensive to employees who got genuine grievance to be redressed and above all, **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 5 to avoid the menacingly growing problem, often described as docket explosion. True that the word 'may' used in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules would suggest existence of discretion in exercise of the power to grant permission to join together and to file a single application. 6.Ordinarily the word 'may' refers discretion (see the decision in **N. Nagendra Rao & Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1994 SC 2663]** . However, the word 'may' does not always import that the matter is discretionary with the court in exercising its function going by the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1965 SC 871]** . The expression 'may' and 'shall' have been the subject of constant and conflict interpretation. The word 'may' is a permissive or enabling expression. Sometimes, it is used merely to show that the Courts are given the jurisdiction to exercise a power and not to give them a direction to decline to exercise the jurisdiction or power granted to them. In other words, there are cases in which for various reasons as soon as the **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 6 person who is within the statute is entrusted with the power it becomes a duty to exercise. Where a statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or public good, the word 'may' has to have the same force as the word 'shall'. Going by the decision in **Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas** reported in **AIR 1950 SC 222,** in construing a power the Court will read the word 'may' as 'must' when the exercise of the power will be in furtherance of the interest of a third person for securing of which the power was given. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that construing the word 'may' used under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Rules as one importing discretion and not as 'must' or 'shall', will go against the grain of the legislation. For argument sake, if it is taken that it gives discretion, even then, one cannot lost sight of the salutary maxim ' _discretio -est discernere per legam sit justum_ ' means 'discretion is to know through law what is just'. Discretion when applied to court of justice means sound discretion guided by law and it must be governed by rule and must be legal and regular. In the said circumstances, viewing the **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 7 usage of the word 'may' in Rule 4(5) (a) of the Rules in any angle, we are of the view that to eliminate the element of arbitrariness which is antithesis to justice, it has to be held that wherever having regard to the cause and the nature of relief prayed for in an Original Application there exists a common interest in the matter, an application for joining together to file a single application shall be allowed lest it will defeat the very soul and purport of the said provision. 7.Now, we will consider the question whether in the case on hand, having regard to the cause and the nature of reliefs prayed for, as extracted above, the petitioners have a common interest in the matter. For considering that question appropriately, the meaning of 'cause of action' has to be looked into. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan brought to our attention the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **A.B.C. Laminart Private Limited v. AP. Agencies Salem** reported **[(1989) 2 SCC 163]** and **Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia [(2015) 10 SCC** **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 8 **161]** . Paragraph 12 in A.B.C. Laminart's case reads as hereunder:- “A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.” Regarding cause of action, it was held in **Indian Performing Rights** **Society** 's case thus:- “Accrual of cause of action is a sine qua non for a suit to be filed. Cause of action is a bundle of facts which is required to be proved to grant relief to the Plaintiff. Cause of action not only **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 9 refers to the infringement but also the material facts on which right is founded. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure recognises the territorial jurisdiction of the courts inter alia where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It has to be decided in each case whether cause of action wholly or in part arises at a particular place. As held by this Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India and Ors. [ : AIR 2001 SC 416]. Thus, a Plaintiff can also file a suit where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.” 8.From the decisions referred (supra), it is evident that a cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with law applicable gives a right to relief to the plaintiff. The bundle of facts narrated explicitly in Ext.P1 Original Application regarding the service particulars, regarding the provisions applicable to financial upgradations, regarding the claims of the petitioners and their contentions regarding entitlement, are necessarily to be proved by them to obtain a relief. To speak succinctly regarding the reliefs, it is evident that the petitioners who are Sorting Assistants, by and large, seek for financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progress Scheme **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 10 (MACP Scheme) on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years service and according to them, in that regard, the direct entry grade has to be taken as Sorting Assistant and for the purpose, reckoning of service has to be from their respective dates of entry in the cadre of Sorting Assistant. True that they were appointed as Sorting Assistants based on Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations held on different dates. It is their common case that they have been continuing in the said cadre without promotion in the direct line of promotion in the hierarchy. It is also their contention that previous career advancements cannot be treated as 'promotion' to deny financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. Evidently, they based their case on AnnexuresA26 to A28, as according to them, the grievances for which they seek redressal stand covered in their favour, by Annexures-A26 to A28 orders/judgments. When such benefits are flowing from AnnexureA24 MACP Scheme and for considering cases maturing in a financial year, a Screening Committee is contemplated and constituted, its nonconsideration, in view of the bundle of facts narrated in Ext.P1 **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 11 application along with its annexures, would give rise to a cause of action for them to approach the Tribunal. As stated earlier, M.A.No.1087 of 2016 was filed by the petitioners with the prayer to permit to them to join together to file a single application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P3 and consequently, the O.A. was closed. 9.It is evident that the prayer of the petitioners is to reckon the requisite length of service viz., 10 years to earn eligibility to get the first financial upgradation, 20 years to earn eligibility to get the second financial upgradation and 30 years to earn eligibility for the third financial upgradation, as the case may be, from the date of commencement of service in the cadre of Sorting Assistant treating the post of Sorting Assistant as entry cadre for the said purpose. True that if it is ultimately allowed, the applicants would be getting the benefit with effect from different dates. But that is not the decisive factor while considering the question whether the application filed **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 12 under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Rules could be allowed or not. The bundle of facts that led to the prayers, as mentioned above, is sufficient to establish the common cause and the common interest, of the petitioners/applicants in the subject matter. So also the question whether such a relief is sought for with respect to 10 years grade, 20 years grade or 30 years grade is irrelevant. In short, the relief sought for would undoubtedly go to show that it is the denial of such a request and non-reckoning of the length of service for the purpose of granting the aforesaid financial upgradations in the aforesaid manner that constrained the applicants to approach the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioners are having a common cause of action and the nature of the reliefs sought for is one and the same and in short, common interest in the subject. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders viz., Exts.P3 and P8 are liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P8 orders are set aside. The applications submitted by the petitioners for joining together, to file a single Original Application, are allowed. The **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 13 Tribunal shall consider the Original Application in accordance with law. The Original Petition is allowed as above. **Sd/-** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/ shg** **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 14 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **O.P.(CAT).1/2017** 15