IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34948 of 2005(S) ------------------------------------------- OA.743/2000 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, AKASHVANI BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI. 3. THE STATION DIRECTOR, ALL INDIA RADIO, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRASAR BHARATHI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN, MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI. BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ P. RAMENDRA KUMAR, CASUAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANT, ALL INDIA RADIO, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.D.HEERA & SMT.SUMY.P.BABY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34948 of 2005(S) - 2 - APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of O.A. No.743/2000 of the C.A.T. Ernakulam, dated 10.6.2000. Ext.P2: True copy of the reply statement filed by the petitioners herein in O.A.No.743/2000 dated 17.2.2005 Ext.P3: True copy of the rejoinder filed by the respondents herein in O.A.No.743/2000 dated 12.3.2005. Ext.P4: True copy of Additional Reply Statement filed by the petitioners herein n O.A. No.743 of 2000 dated 27.5.2005. Ext.P5: True copy of the order dated 7.9.2005 in O.A.No.743/2000 of the C.A.T., Ernakulam. (True copy) K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.34948 of 2005 S ------------------------------ Dated this, the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in Original Application No.743 of 2000 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are the petitioners. The said Original Application was filed by the respondent herein. The Tribunal, by Ext.P5 order dated 7.9.2005, allowed the Original Application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed. 2. The respondent claimed that he is a Casual Production Assistant working under the Station Director, All India Radio, Thiruvananthapuram. Based on Annexure A1 judgment produced along with Ext.P1 Original Application, the writ petitioners have framed Annexure A2 Scheme for absorption of Casual Production Assistants and General Assistants who have worked 72 days in a Calendar Year before 31.12.1991. The respondent/applicant claimed the benefit of the said Scheme and represented. The said representation was considered and rejected by the Director General, All India Radio, by Annexure A11 order dated 2.2.2000. Challenging that order, the Original Application was filed. The writ petitioners resisted the WPC No.34948 of 2005 - 2 - application contending that the applicant was only doing the work of a Compere and that too for Family Welfare Programmes only. He never worked as Casual Production Assistant or General Assistant, it was submitted. Even assuming that, the respondent has worked for some days, he has not worked for 72 days as Casual Production Assistant. The Tribunal examined the records and other materials produced and held as follows: “We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents and material placed on record. From the compilation of Quotation Contracts we could verify the correctness of A/12 chart and see that the applicant was engaged for 72 days as Casual Production Assistant between the period 20.1.987 and 31.12.1987.” In view of the said finding of fact, relief was granted to the applicant. We notice that the above finding is essentially a finding of fact, which cannot be disturbed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No material compelling us to take a different view, has been brought to our notice, in this writ petition. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the finding of the Tribunal that de hors Annexure A2 Scheme, the respondent is entitled to get the benefit, is WPC No.34948 of 2005 - 3 - not sustainable. The finding on the said point is contained in paragraph 12 of the order of the Tribunal, Ext.P5. Since on the facts of this case, it was found that the respondent/applicant is entitled to get the benefit of Annexure A2 scheme, it was unnecessary to consider whether he was entitled to get regularisation independent of Annexure A2. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on the said aspect in paragraph 12 is vacated. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (True copy)