RP NO. 384 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:29810 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 384 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.1.2025 IN OP (CAT) NO.78 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1 ALL INDIA NAVAL CLERKS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, P.V. VIJU, AGED 51 YEARS S/O LATE P.K. VIJAYAN UDC, COMMAND TRANSPORT WORKSHOP (CTW) HQSNC, KOCHI-682 004 RESIDING AT PADMATHEERTHAM, KUMBALA P.O. ERNAKULAM-682 506 GENERAL SECRETARY, ALL INDIA NAVAL CLERKS ASSOCIATION DOOR NO.39/3293C/2ND FLOOR, KSN MENON ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682016 2 K.P. SANKARANARAYANAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN EMBRANTHIRI UDC, MATERIAL ORGANISATION, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI -682004, ;KIZHAKKE POTTAYIL HOUSE’, ANNAMANADA, PIN - 680741 3 M.D. TINU AGED 55 YEARS W/O. P.T. SASIKUMAR, UDC, INS VENDURUTHY, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI -682004 PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE’ NEAR SUB-JAIL, TREASURY ROAD, PIN - 683101 4 PETER GEORGE AGED 50 YEARS S/O. P.M. GEORGE UDC, BV YARD, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI -682004 'DAWSON VIHAR’, IIIC8, THYKKOODAM, VYTTILA, PIN – 682019 RP NO. 384 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:29810 5 BENNY JOSEPH AGED 54 YEARS S/O DEVASSIA JOSEPH UDC MATERIAL ORGANISATION, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI -682004, VELIYIL HOUSE’, KALAVAMCODAM P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN - 688254 BY ADVS. S.RADHAKRISHNAN ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY) REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, DIRECTORATE OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL,D-II WING, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011 4 THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF HEADQUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI, PIN - 682004 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO. 384 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:29810 JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J. Review petition has been filed that the OP(CAT) is permissible under Section 9 of the Administrative Tribunal Act on behalf of the Association. In support of the contention, relied upon the judgment of this Court in OP(CAT) No. 447 of 2024 decided on 29.10.2024. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment reads thus: 3. In O.P. (KAT) No.316 of 2024, a Division Bench of this Court, after noting the maintainability of the application filed at the instance of an association, had held that a transfer order passed in violation of executive order can only be challenged by the aggrieved person and not by the association. We also endorse the view regarding transfer orders, the aggrieved individuals will have to challenge such orders individually. However, we note that if there are numerous individuals, nothing prevents the individuals from espousing their cause through an association, as the association also can be deemed as aggrieved. However, in that application, the details of such aggrieved persons will have to be mentioned or enlisted so as to espouse the grievances before the Tribunal. 4. Filing an original application on behalf of its members may arise in different circumstances. 1) espousing individual grievances of members. 2) common grievances of members or an association. In both scenarios, the application is maintainable. However, in respect of the first ground, the list of aggrieved will have to be furnished before the Tribunal. In the second scenario, there is no such situation as the association is espousing the common grievances of its members. The second scenario may arise in cases like challenging the Rules or any other transfer norms etc, where there may not be identical individuals but the challenge would be in respect of Rules or norms as the case may be. 2. However, in our judgment, we have categorically observed that the Association cannot espouse the grievance in RP NO. 384 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:29810 the absence of any details/particulars of the affected parties. Even the other party respondent Nos.2 and 4 have also not given any details of how they have been affected. In this view of the matter, there is no error apparent on record. Review petition is dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- sab K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE RP NO. 384 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:29810 APPENDIX OF RP 384/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN OP(CAT) NO. 78/2022 DATED 29.01.2025 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) NO. 447/2024 DATED 29.10.2024