Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Thalhath vs Ut Of Lakshadweep on 26 February, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 181/00057/2016
Thursday, this the 26th day of February, 2026.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Thalhath P.S., aged 46 years, S/o.Uduman,
Puthiyasurambi, Therakkal,
Folk Dance Instructor,
Public Library, Art & Culture Department,
Kadmat, Lakshadweep.
2. Ummer.P., aged 42 years, S/o.Cheriya Koya,
Purathakkal, Balap,
Folk Dance Instructor,
Public Library, Art & Culture Department,
Amini, Lakshadweep.
3. Habeeb.K.M., aged 50 years, S/o.Ahamed,
Kunninamel, Mayampokkada,
Folk Dance Instructor,
Public Library, Art & Culture Department,
Kalpeni, Lakshadweep.
4. Sayedali.P.A., aged 47 years, S/o.Basha,
Puthiya Alicom, Anapura,
Folk Dance Instructor,
Public Library, Art & Culture Department,
Kavaratti, Lakshadweep.
5. Siddick.K., aged 42 years, S/o.Abdulla,
Puthiyasurambi, Kattakam,
Folk Dance Instructor,
Public Library, Art & Culture Department,
Kiltan, Lakshadweep.
2026.03.13
12:29:56
VISHAL
+05'30'
2024.3.0
2
6. Abdul Kader B.M., aged 46 years, S/o.Ahamed,
Puthiya Alicom, Kurupu Pura,
Folk Dance Instructor,
Public Library, Art & Culture Department,
Chetlat, Lakshadweep.
7. Abdul Gafoor C, aged 41 years, S/o. Nooruddeen,
Puthiya Pura, Chonam,
Folk Dance Instructor,
Public Library, Art & Culture Department,
Agatti, Lakshadweep.
8. Fahiza.P., aged 26 years, D/o. Hassan Ibrahim,
Faimigothi, Fenegenna Ghothi,
Folk Dance Instructor,
Public Library, Art & Culture Department,
Minicoy, Lakshadweep.
-Applicants
[By Advocates : Mr. Vinod Madhavan, Mr. M.V. Bose and Ms. Nisha Bose]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by Director,
Department of Art and Culture,
Lakshadweep Administration, Kavaratti - 682 555.
2. The Administrator,
Lakshadweep Administration,
Kavaratti - 682 555.
3. The Collector & Development Commissioner,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti - 682 555.
-Respondents
[By Advocate : Mrs. Sreekala K.L., SPC]
2026.03.13
12:29:56
VISHAL
+05'30'
2024.3.0
3
The Original Application having been heard on 26.02.2026, the
Tribunal on the same day delivered the following:
O R D E R (Oral):-
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member The applicants 1 to 7 were appointed as Folk Dance Instructors under the Directorate of Art and Culture, Lakshadweep Islands on various dates, during 1992 to 1994. Applicant Nos. 6,7 and 8 were appointed in 2004, 2008 and 2010 respectively. Annexures A1 and A1(a) are the two orders issued in favour of the two of the applicants. They were engaged to work under the Office of the Library & Information Assistant and to conduct folk dance training to 20 persons in two batches, every afternoon of working days. In 2009, Lakshadweep Kala Academy engaged Programme Assistants to provide training to young artists on local folk arts as a preservation of Lakshadweep folk culture. They were engaged on contract basis. In the meanwhile, Annexure A4 order dated 28.01.2015 was issued by the 1 st respondent extending the engagement of the applicants for one year from 22.01.2015 to 23.01.2016. Apprehending that applicants will be terminated, after the expiry of above period, they have approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs.
2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 4 "...i. call for the entire records which led to Annexure A4 and set aside the same enabling the applicants to continue in service as Folk Dance Instructors ii. declare that the applicants are entitled to be retained in service as Folk Dance Instructors in preference to Programme Assistants appointed by the Lakshadweep Kala Academy and direct the respondents to retain the applicants as Folk Dance Instructors.
iii. grant such other appropriate orders or directions as are deemed fit and proper, by this Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of this case.."
2. At the time of admission, an interim order was granted restraining the respondents from terminating the service of the applicants. The interim order was extended from time to time and is continuing.
3. Respondents filed a detailed reply statement traversing the allegations made in the Original Application and contending that the applicants were engaged temporarily on monthly consolidated honorarium basis. By Annexure A4 their term was extended for a period of one year. They were not appointed through a regular process of appointment and were not appointed against sanctioned post and not in accordance with Constitutional scheme of employment. There was no Recruitment Rule and public notice 2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 5 was not issued prior to their engagement. Hence, they cannot be termed as regularly appointed as they were engaged temporarily on monthly consolidated honorarium basis and hence their engagement does not confer any right whatsoever for them to continue in engagement. Hence, it was contended that the applicants are not entitled to continue in service.
4. Programme Assistants were appointed in a duly conducted interview. Their work are more organised than the applicants. Chairman, Island Council was the erstwhile institution in place of Panchayath. In the additional reply statement it was stated that none of the applicants were engaged to sanctioned posts and some among the applicants have not completed 10 years of service to claim benefit of Uma Devi's case.
5. Heard both sides and examined the records.
6. The O.A was earlier disposed of by order dated 03.04.2018. It was reviewed at the instance of the applicant on technical grounds, including that the 6th applicant, who had died in interregnum, was not represented by 2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 6 his legal heirs. Hence, the matter has come up before us again. However, even thereafter, the legal heirs of 6 th applicant are not brought on record. Hence the claim of the 6th applicant is abated and hence the O.A of the 6 th applicant is not sustainable.
7. Annexure A1 order dated 11.02.1994 is an appointment order issued to one of the applicants. It states that the person was appointed as Dance Instructor attached to Island council office and on payment of an honorarium of Rs. 900/- per month. He was obliged to organize a troup of folk dance and work under the control of Chairman Island Council. It was specifically stated that the appointment was initially for six months from the date of appointment, that it was purely on an honorarium basis and it would not render any claim for regular appointment. Identical orders were issued to other applicants. The terms of their engagement are also seen in Annexure A2 dated 15.01.2004.
8. Thereafter Annexure A3 dated 28.01.2015 was issued, by which their monthly consolidated honorarium was enhanced. It was reiterated therein 2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 7 that their engagement was purely on monthly consolidated honorarium basis for one year and will not confer any claim for regular appointment. By Annexure A4 dated 28.01.2015, their term of engagement was extended by one year from 22.01.2015 to 23.01.2016 with a clarification that they would not be entitled for any regular appointment.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant specifically contended that in the light of their engagement for long period and in the light of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1], which was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India [AIR 2025 SC 296], they are entitled to be regularised. In Jaggo's case it was clarified that Uma Devi's case (supra) was not intended to deny employment to persons who have been engaged continuously for a long period.
10. Respondents have a specific contention that there was no regular post available and that applicants were not appointed against any specified sanctioned post. Most of the applicants were not engaged directly by the 2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 8 Lakshadweep Administration. They have also specific case that initial engagement varied from applicant to applicant. The nature of their engagement was on monthly consolidated honorarium basis.
11. We are afraid that the decision in the Jaggo's case (supra) may not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case nor Uma Devi's case (supra) in the light of the specific contention of the respondents. It is to be noted that there is absolutely no prayer in the O.A for regularization of their service. The prayer sought is in the nature of a declaration that the applicants are entitled to be retained in service as Folk Dance Instructors in preference to Programme Assistants appointed by the Lakshadweep Kala Academy. The legal basis on which they claim such a relief is also not discernible.
12. Regarding the appointment of Folk Programme Assistants, it is essential to refer to the minutes of the meeting of note filed which is produced as Annexure A5. In that, the 1 st respondent had noted with regard to the discontinuation of the engagement of the Folk Dance Instructors in 2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 9 the light of engagement of Programme Assistants as follows.
"...Discussed with Dir.(A&C), JCEO (DP) and other departmental staff. During the discussion it emerged that the Folk Dance Instructors under the DP are also doing the same work as it is being done by the Programme Assistants. Hence it is clear that there is duplication of work. Since the Programme Instructors are more organized and their work allocation is well chartered out and since there is one Male and Female Programme Assistants in each island, we may continue with the engagement of Programme Assistants. However, I am not in favour of having the Folk Dance Instructors as it amounts to duplication of work. Whenever the tenure of Folk Dance Instructors comes to end necessary approval may be taken to discontinue their engagement.
In view of the above, the approval accorded vide 328 shall be implemented with effect from today ie., 12.11.2015..."
13. In this background, the respondents decided to bring to an end the services of the applicants. Hence, no relief can be granted to applicants, since their engagement will be in excess of requirement.
14. There is absolutely no material to show that they were appointed by a regular process of appointment after a due notification. Though strictly we cannot say their appointment was illegal in the light of the facts mentioned earlier, we do not feel that the applicants are entitled for the prayer as 2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 10 framed in the O.A.
15. The learned counsel for the applicant as an alternate relief contended that if at all the applicants are to be terminated, the principle of 'first come last go' principle envisaged in Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should apply. We feel that in the facts of the case, Section 25 (F) will not apply. Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Act, 1947 will apply in cases wherein persons engaged are sought to be retrenched, for any reason whatsoever, otherwise, than as punishment. When retrenchment is proposed, normally the principle of 'first come last go' should be followed.
16. Another contention set up by the learned counsel for the applicant was that one month's notice ought to have been given, it is evidently clear that the applicants had approached this Tribunal apprehending termination and the question of one month's notice will not arise. The factual premise advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants as revealed from the records also does not fall within the four corners of qualifying conditions as laid down in Uma Devi's and Jaggo's case (supra) 2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 11
17. Having considered the entire aspects, we are not inclined to grant any relief as sought in the O.A. O.A fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2026) V. RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER v 2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 12 List of Annexures Annexure A1- True copy of the order dated 11.02.1994 issued by the Chairman, Chairman Island Council, Kadamat. Annexure A1(a)- True copy of the order dated 25.02.1994 issued by the Chairman, Chairman Island Council, Amini. Annexure A2- True copy of the Chart of duties assigned to the Folk Dance Instructors, dated 15.1.2004.
Annexure A3- True copy of the Chart of duties assigned to the Folk Dance Instructors dated 28.01.2015.
Annexure A4- True copy of the order dated 28.01.2015 issued by the 1 st respondent.
Annexure A5- True copy of the relevant pages of the information obtained under the Right to Information Act. Annexure A6- True copy of the order dated 12.11.2015 issued by the Secretary, Lakshadweep Kala Academy. Annexure A7- True copy of the order dated 17.11.2015 preferred by the 1 applicant before the 2nd respondent. st Annexure A7(a)- True copy of the order dated 17.11.2015 preferred by the 1st applicant before the 3rd respondent. Annexure A8- True copy of the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.1994. Annexure A9- True copy of the order dated 30.05.1994. Annexure A9(a)- True copy of the order dated 26.07.1996. Annexure A10- True copy of the order dated 30.10.2010.
2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 13 Annexure A11- True copy of the attendance register for the month of October, 2023 maintained in the Public Library, Art & Culture Department, Amini.
Annexure A12- True copy of the order no.F.No.2/2/2007-GSSSA/1099 dated 28.03.2023 issued by the Lakshadweep Administration. Annexure A13- True copy of the order no.19/01/2018-DP(AC)/233 dated 23.03.2023 issued by the Lakshadweep Administration. Annexure A14- True copy of the Office Order dated 17.01.2024 issued by Lakshadweep District Panchayat bearing No: F.No.1/1/2015- PL(KLP)/64 with Sub: PL(KLP)-relieving of Shri. K. Habeeb Folk Dance Instructor.
Annexure A15- True copy of the Office Order dated 30.01.2024 issued by the Director, Art and Culture relieving Shri. Habeeb. K, Shri. Abdul Gafoor C, Shri. Siddick K, Shri. Thalhath P.S, and Fahisa, Folk Dance Instructors.
****** 2026.03.13 12:29:56 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0