W RICHARD PRADEEPAM; RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR; ASHARAM BAGHOTIA; R S N NAIR S/O RAMAN PILLAI; K M KUNHIRAMAN; P NANU S/O KANNAN; C J JOSEPH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the writ petitioners. They were members of the Central Reserve Police Force. On the allegation that they participated in a strike in 1979, they were dismissed from service. They challenged their dismissal before this court, by filing O.P.3736/1980. The Apex Court, while hearing the cases filed by similarly placed persons, called for this original petition also. It was considered along with the other cases and finally dismissed, confirming their dismissal from the C.R.P.F. Recently, the appellants came to know that similarly placed persons like them, approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, set aside the dismissal order of the persons concerned and ordered to grant various service benefits in lieu of reinstatement. The said decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was affirmed by the Division Bench of that High Court and the Special Leave attempted against the appellate judgment before the Apex Court was dismissed by Ext.P6 order. Claiming the benefits of Ext.P5, it is submitted that the appellants moved the Government of India. Thereafter, they moved the Apex Court. But the said petition before the Apex Court was withdrawn with liberty to move the court of competent jurisdiction. Seeking the benefits of Ext.P5, the present writ petition was filed. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, as their dismissal was already affirmed by the Apex Court, by the decision in Union of India v. Tulasiram Patel, 1985 3 SCC 398. Challenging the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is preferred.

(2.) We heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar for the appellants. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellants are persons similarly placed like the petitioners in Ext.P5 and therefore, a direction may be issued to grant them the benefits similar to those granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the petitioners in Ext.P5.

(3.) We went through Ext.P5. We notice that the petitioners therein challenged their dismissal from the C.R.P.F. and the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the dismissal order. Since they have already crossed the age of superannuation, instead of reinstatement, service benefits were ordered to be granted to them. In this case, we find that the challenge made by the appellants against their dismissal from C.R.P.F. was repelled by the Apex Court. That means, their dismissal has become final. Therefore, the appellants cannot seek any benefits from the respondents. We fully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.