Kamal Kumar v. Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN IN WP SR NO. 95433 OF 2025
1. Kamal Kumar 2.Balamurugan K 3.Maxmin X 4.Mendi Tatababu 5.Mahalingam B 6.Chandan Kumar
7. KRISHNAKUMAR 8.Prabakaran M 9.Prabhu K 10.Saju John 11.Jagadheswarn K 12.Jithin Das Kv 13.Name Abhishek Anand 14.Masana Raja C 15.Venkata Sasidhar Puli 16.Vijey Murugan A C 17.Anish Joe H 18.Viswanathan C 19.Vijay G 20.Ariharaputhiran G 21.Vasantshakumar J 22.Stalin Srinivasan S
23.Rajarathinam S 24.P Maridas 25.E Vignesh 26.Rajaram A 27.Moorthy Mn 28.Jeyakumar K S 29.Isaivanan M 30.Arunkumar M 31.Mohankumar A 32.Vinoba G 33.C S Karnal Gopinath 34.Jerome J 35.Balaji Packinath M 36.Chandra Sekaran R 37.Vijay Kumar Yadav 38.A Mani 39.Kalaikovan K 40.Udayabhaskar Voolapatti 41.Manish Kumar 42.Sathiyamoorthy S 43.Karthikeyan M 44.Murali Raghavan S 45.Jeyakumar M 46.Boopalan M 47.Navaneethakrishnan T 48.Mohit Raj Kaushal 49.Kks Meianand Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Union Of India Corporation, Rep by its Director General, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi.
2.The Additional Commissioenr And Regional Director Corporation, Regional Office, Tamilnadu, No.143, Sterling Road, Chennai 3.Krithika S 4.Veera Raghavan A 5.Gokul S 6.Vettivel A 7.Bhuvaneshwaran G 8.PRASATH 9.Gowridasan A 10.Vijaya Prabakaran A 11.Alok Kumar Respondent(s) Petition filed to permit the petitioners to challenge the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A no. 530/2020 and third parties.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for M/s.P.Brindha For Respondent(s):
Mr.C.V.Ramachandramoorthy, SPC for R1 and R2.
Mr.J.Srinivasamohan for R3 to R10
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioners have not been been impleaded as party respondents in the O.A.No.530 of 2020. Challenging the impugned order as well as the
consequential orders, the petitioners herein filed this petition seeking leave to permit them to file the above writ petition challenging the order of the CAT, Chennai Bench as third parties.
2. According to the petitioners, they are not made as parties in the above Original Application, whereas, show cause notices have been issued as to revising their seniority. Hence, seeks leave.
3. Considering the fact that the petitioners are not made as parties before the Tribunal, we are of the prima facie view that they should be heard and thus, they may be permitted to file writ petition.
4. Accordingly, leave is granted and this petition is ordered.
5. Registry is directed to number the petition, if it is otherwise in order. (N.SATHISH KUMAR J.)(M.JOTHIRAMAN J.) 13-11-2025 dhk Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.The Director Union Of India Corporation, Rep by its General, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi.
2.The Additional Commissioner and Regional Director Corporation, Regional Office, Tamilnadu, No.143, Sterling Road, Chennai 3.The Presiding Officer Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
dhk IN WP SR NO. 95433 OF 2025 13-11-2025