The High Court allowed an Article 311 service matter against the respondent department and CAT, holding that the applicant was regularised only with effect from his appointment date in 2005 despite incremental payments earlier, rejecting claims for 1997 regularization.
Tribunal order set aside; applicant regularised with effect from 13.04.2005.
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 HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934
OP (CAT).No. 2407 of 2012 (Z)
RA.NO.25/2012 IN OA.267/2011 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER(S):
1. UNION OF INDIA,
2. THE CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SEVA BHAVAN, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI-110006.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER CAUVERY & SOUTHERN RIVERS CIRCLE, CNETRAL WATER COMMISSION,”JALA SAUDHA”, II FLOOR, ROOM NO. 219, JALAHALLI HEAD POST OFFICE BANGALORE-560013.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SOUTH WESTERN RIVERS DIVISION, CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, NO. 27/1927 A, KASTURBA NAGAR, KOCHU KADAVANTHRA, KADAVANTHRA P.O., COCHIN-682020.
BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
RESPONDENT(S):
M.S.GOPI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN, KHALASI, CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, NEELESWARAM, ERNAKULAM DIST-682020.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LSN
OP (CAT).No. 2407 of 2012 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
LSN
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.
O.P.(CAT)No. 2407 OF 2012
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.
By consent of both the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. We have gone through the order of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.267 of 2011 dated 09.02.2012 and also order dated 15.05.2012 in M.A. No.420 of
201 in R.A. No.25 of 2012 in O.A. No.267 of 2011.
“(i) Finalise the seniority list of the seasonal Khalasis on the basis of their actual aggregate length of service in successive years after notifying the same first provisionally
OP(CAT) No.2407 of 2012
-:2:-
inviting objections if any from the concerned employees and then notifying the final seniority list after considering the finalising the objections if any from the concerned employees.
(ii) Consider the applicants for appointment against the workcharged posts of Khalasis on regular basis based on their seniority without reference to the “scheme” in R1(A) modified by R1(B).
(iii) Grant necessary relaxations in favour of the applicants from the provisions of the recruitment rules as required for (ii) above.
(iv) Till regularisation, applicants be continued to be engaged as seasonal Khalasis.”
has to see what steps were taken either by the writ petitioners or the applicant/respondent Mr.Gopi. Apparently, this order in OA No.1552 of 1997 was not challenged by the Original Applicant/the respondent employee. An appeal was filed challenging the order by the Department, but the same came to be dismissed. Above directions of the Tribunal indicates, first a provisional seniority list has to be prepared and thereafter, after considering the objections, if any, final seniority list has to be prepared. Thereafter, the cases of the applicants could be considered for appointment against the workcharged post of
OP(CAT) No.2407 of 2012
-:3:-
Khalasi on regular basis based on their seniority without reference to the Scheme in Annexure R1(A) modified by Annexure R1(B).
OP(CAT) No.2407 of 2012
-:4:-
scheme. All these issues have reached finality as the Original Petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed.
was placed above the other juniors or not. As per the directions of the Tribunal dated 18.04.2000, a provisional list had to be prepared and after receiving objections, considering the same, a final list of seniority had to be prepared. Apparently, provisional and final list of seniority were prepared and that never came to be challenged by the respondent applicant herein. It happened subsequent to the order dated 18.04.2000. Regularisation of applicant was with effect from April 2005 and payment of increments and other benefits from 01.08.2000 as per the scheme. So far as the restriction not to refer to the scheme pertains to only regularisation but not payment of increment. Therefore, so far as Annexure A9 the applicant's name finds place at Serial No.4 and he is given all increments as per the revised scheme with effect from 01.08.2000.
OP(CAT) No.2407 of 2012
-:5:-
regularised only with effect from April 2005 as he reached eligible criterion only in the year 2005. It is also pertinent to mention that this order of regularisation in 2005 was never challenged claiming that he is entitled for regularisation from 1997. As already stated above his claim for 1997 regularisation came to be rejected in the earlier round of litigation and the department has followed the directions of Tribunal in so far as preparing the seniority list.
“4. We have heard both sides. The applicant seeks regularisation with effect from 1997 which is clearly barred by law of limitation though he has been corresponding with the respondents by filing representations as contended by the counsel. It is settled law that mere sending representations after representations will not keep the cause of action alive once it is submitted out of time. But by Annexure A9 dated 17.02.2011 which is an office order the applicant had been given increment benefit with effect from 01.08.2000, second increment from 01.08.2002 and 3rd increment on 01.10.2004. If he was no entitled to regularisation retrospectively, with effect from 01.08.2000 the question of payment of increment
OP(CAT) No.2407 of 2012
-:6:-
does not arise. Therefore, even vide Annexure A9 the regularisation can be given to the applicant from 01.08.2000 as the department have themselves treated him as a regular employee giving increments with effect from 01.08.2000. Therefore, we declare that the applicant stands regularised with effect from 01.08.2000 the date on which he was given increment as per Annexure A9 and all service benefits will accrue to him accordingly.”
to the applicant as indicated at Annexure A9 in terms of the
scheme and there is no restriction or prohibition or bar to apply the scheme so far as the increments. Only with regard to the regularisation there should not be any reference to the scheme. As a matter of fact, on a reading of the entire scheme no where it says how temporary or seasonal Khalasies have to be regularised. In that view of the matter, the regularisation cannot be in terms of the scheme at all, as there is no such procedure envisaged in the scheme. Reading of paragraph 4 of the order of CAT indicates reasoning why his regularisation has to be considered from 01.08.2000. This reasoning has no support either from the earlier directions of the Tribunal or the scheme.
OP(CAT) No.2407 of 2012
-:7:-
In that view of the matter, mere payment of increments from 01.08.2000 will not automatically entitle the applicant to get regular employee status with effect from 01.08.2000.
In view of the above discussion and reasoning, we are of the opinion, the order of the Tribunal at Exts.P6 and P9 deserve to be set aside conferring the regularisation of the applicant with effect from 13.04.2005. The Original Petition is
allowed as above.
Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/05/09
OP(CAT) No.2407 of 2012
-:8:-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal should have regularised the applicant retrospectively from 1997 or 2000 based on prior scheme restrictions.
Whether the grant of increments from 2000 automatically entitles an employee to regularisation status from that date.
Whether the applicant was correctly placed in the seniority list as per Tribunal directions.
Union of India
The Central Water Commission
Chief Engineer, Cauvery & Southern Rivers Organisation
Superintendent Engineer, Cauvery & Southern Rivers Circle
Executive Engineer, South Western Rivers Division
M.S. Gopi
Manjula Chellur
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
