Kerala High Court
Union Of India Represented By The vs P.P.Bridget D/O. John Charles on 28 February, 2008
Author: C.N.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22810 of 2004(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNEMNT OF INDIA
3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SR), DEPARTMENT
Vs
1. P.P.BRIDGET D/O. JOHN CHARLES,
... Respondent
2. K.NANDAKUMAR, S/O. LATE M.PADMANABHAN,
3. V.KUPPA LATHA W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR,
4. K.S.SASIDHARAN,
5. C.P.BEENAKUMARI, W/O. N.K.DEVARAJ,
6. K.K.KAMALAM W/O. G.N.RAJAN,
7. V.G.ROSY, W/O. V.J.JOHN, AGED 37 YEARS,
8. P.P.GEORGE, S/O. LATE OUSEPH PAPPU,
9. JOSSY CYRIAC, S/O. LATE CYRIAC,
10. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :28/02/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W.P.(C) Nos. 22810/2004 & 16471/2007
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
Heard the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the respondents. Respondents in both the petitions were initially appointed as estate clerks in the office of the official liquidator at Ernakulam. While the respondent in W.P.(C) No.16471/2007 was appointed in 1975, the respondents in the other case, W.P.(C) No.22810/2004, were appointed between 1980-85. Since there are no rules for appointment, respondents were appointed based on a procedure approved under Rules 308 and 309 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959. Since, service of the respondents were not regularised, they approached this Court by filing original petition which led to Ext.P1 judgment (O.P.No.9732/1990) of the Division Bench produced in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004. This Court directed absorption of respondents in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004 with effect from the date on which they were taken on temporary appointment. When appeal was filed by the petitioners herein, the Supreme Court vide Ext.P2 judgment produced in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004, though dismissed W.P.(C) Nos. 22810/2004 & 16471/2007 -: 2 :- the appeal gave six months' time to frame scheme for regularisation of the employees. The operative portion of the Supreme Court judgment says that if the petitioners herein fail to frame the scheme within the six months granted by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the High Court will stand confirmed. Admittedly, the petitioners did not frame any scheme for regularisation of the temporary employees and, consequently, Ext.P1 judgment (Annexure A1-O.P.No.9732/1990) produced in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004 has become final. In fact, the respondents could have moved this Court for initiating the contempt when judgment was not implemented. However, in view of the delay in filing the contempt application they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the same relief which is granted through the impugned order (Ext.P9). We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal challenged in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004 because it is only an endorsement of what the High Court has granted to the respondents. We therefore, dismiss W.P.(C) No.22810/2004.
2. So far as W.P.(C) No.16471/2007 is concerned, the respondent is in the same position as the respondents in the W.P.(C) Nos. 22810/2004 & 16471/2007 -: 3 :- other case except for the fact that she is not a party to the writ proceedings before this Court. We do not think the respondent in this case could be denied the benefit merely because she was not a party to the writ proceedings. We therefore, hold that the respondent is entitled to the same benefits as the respondents in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004. However, since the respondent herein has retired there is no scope for regularising her service with effect from the date of first appointment for payment of arrears of salary. However, it will be unjust to deny pensionary benefits for the period of service ever since she joined the temporary employment. All what the Tribunal has done by the impugned order is to direct the petitioners to reckon her service from 1975 onwards till regularisation for the purpose of pension. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We therefore, dismiss W.P.(C) No.16471/2007 also.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms