The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Administrative Tribunal's order granting regularisation to an employee appointed on adhoc stop-gap service. The court held that completing ten years of service outweighed the selection procedure difference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932
WP(C).No. 28552 of 2010(S)
-------------------------OA.471/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH ....................
PETITIONERS:
BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
.................................................................... W.P.(C) No.28552 of 2010
.................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioner. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and after going through the Tribunal's order, we do not find any merit in the petitioner's case because Tribunal granted relief to the first respondent for the reason the he was in the service of the appellant for 10 years, though appointed under stop-gap arrangement when somebody was kept out of service. Admittedly, first respondent is still in service and has completed more than ten years. The benefit claimed by the first respondent is under Annexure-6 which provides for regularisation in service of who have put in atleast three years of service. The only difference between the first respondent and others who are entitled to benefit under Annexure-6 is in the selection procedure in as much as according to the appellants, first respondent was appointed on adhoc
2
basis in the vacancy and he was not recruited to the post. We do not think this will affect first respondent's entitlement for benefit of Annexure-6. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the W.P.(C) and the same is dismissed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge
K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
pms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee appointed on a stop-gap adhoc basis is entitled to regularisation under Annexure-6 despite differing selection procedures from regular recruits.
Whether the Kerala High Court finds merit in the Writ Petitioner's challenge to the Tribunal's order granting regularisation.
The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Nedumangad Sub Division, Kerala
The Superintendent of Post Offices Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division
Union of India, represented by the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle
Geethakumar.C
Vishnu R.S
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
K. Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
