IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29580 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R.MUNIAPPAN, S/O.RAMAYYAN RETIRENCHED CASUAL ALBOURER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY J.MONIPPALLY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY , CHENNAI. 2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R1 SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2&3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF SERVICE PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY PERMANENT WAY INSPECTOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY ERODE. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DT.5.3.1999 ISSUED BY SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PALGHAT. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DT.22.9.2003. P4: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DT.20.3.2004. P5: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT OF LEARNED CAT IN O.A. NO.481/2005. P6: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER PASSEDBY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DT.12.1.2007. P7: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.A. NO.108/2007 DT.25.7.2007 BEFORE CAT, ERNAKULAM. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.29580 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. W.P.(C) is filed challenging the order of CAT declaring ineligibility for the petitioner to get employment with the Railways. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways. 2. Petitioner claims to be an ex-casual employee eligible for re- employment based on the decision of Supreme Court in INDERPAL YADAV's case. The petitioner was employed for 480 days from 1981 to 1990. Admittedly the petitioner is eligible for absorption in the Railways, if there is evidence regarding his employment as above. However, Railways' case is that even though there is a person by the same name in the list prepared, age does not tally with that of the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot be given employment. The Tribunal accepted this contention and rejected the O.A. filed by the petitioner. It is against this order of the Tribunal the petitioner has filed WPC 29580/08 2 this W.P.(C). 3. On the last hearing date we directed the Standing Counsel for Railways to verify whether the thumb impression taken earlier tallies with the thumb impression of the petitioner. Standing Counsel today confirmed that the thumb impression tallies with that on the document kept with the Railways. So much so, we do not think identity of the petitioner can be questioned by the Railways. The casual employees joining Railway service have hardly any education and in fact they may not have even records to prove their age. Therefore, there is likelihood of discrepancy in the age declared and the actual age of the petitioner proved with records now. We, therefore, allow the W.P.(C) setting aside the order of the CAT and with direction to respondents 2 and 3 to absorb the petitioner in service based on the age declared and available in the records of the Railways i.e. 20 years in 1981. Since petitioner was declined employment for no fault of his, we direct the Railways to place him in the position he would have been had he been given employment in time based on the list prepared and fix his pay and allowances accordingly. However, no backwages or arrears will be WPC 29580/08 3 payable to the petitioner and payment will start from the date of joining service. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to issue appointment order within a period of one month from date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms