This court dismissed an original petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order. The Tribunal directed re-employment of a casual employee holding eligibility status who failed to respond to selection notifications.
Writ petition dismissed. Seniority ordered from date of CAT order.
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 P.S.GOPINATHAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933
OP (CAT).No. 1979 of 2011(Z)
---------------------------OA.72/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS:
BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS
RESPONDENTS:
ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN FOR R-2
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBTIS:
P1: TRUE COPY OF OA NO.72/2010 WITHOUT ANNEXURES, FILED BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
P2: TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO.72/2010.
P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS IN O.A. NO.72/2010.
P4: TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO.72/2010.
P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.15.3.2011 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. NO.72/2010.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
.................................................................... O.P.(CAT) No.1979 of 2011
.................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard Standing Counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the first respondent. Order under challenge is one issued by CAT directing the Railways to give employment to first respondent who was eligible as a casual employee previously employed. Large number of casual employees got employment by virtue of judgment of the Supreme Court directing the Railways to reconsider re-employment to them. First respondent admittedly was eligible. However, the only reason why he was not appointed is that he did not respond to Railways' Notification for selection. The Tribunal noticed that the omission to respond to the Notification does not deprive the first respondent of his eligibility for re-employment. So long as CAT has not ordered employment with retrospective effect, we do not find any grievance for
the Railways because if first respondent had responded to the notification, he would have got job. In other words, CAT ordered
2
employment of first respondent only after being satisfied that first respondent was eligible. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the CAT. Consequently O.P.(CAT) is dismissed. Seniority necessarily has to be granted to the first respondent from the date of order of the CAT based on which he is going to be appointed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge
P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge
pms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the CAT order directing re-employment despite the respondent's failure to respond to the selection notification.
Union of India
S.M. Peer Mohammad
C.N.Ramachandran Nair
P.S.Gopinathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
