IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15344 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.416/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CIVILIANS) OFFICE OF THE FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI. 2. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN,SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENTS: ------------- M.N.ASOKAN, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15344 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.416/05. The said O.A., a copy of which is produced as Exhibit P2, was filed by the applicant, who is the respondent herein, praying that the the service rendered by him from 5th April 1989 to 15th April 1993 may be regularised. The respondents in the O.A. who are the writ petitioners resisted the application by filing Exhibit P3 reply statement. It was contended that there was a long break of 57 days preceding 15.8.1993. As per the prevailing policy, service break exceeding 30 days cannot be condoned. The applicant filed Exhibit P4 rejoinder. The writ petitioners filed Exhibit P5 additional reply statement. The Tribunal after hearing both sides allowed the O.A. by Exhibit P1 judgment. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P1. 2. We heard learned counsel Mr.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan, for the writ petitioners. Learned counsel pressed the very same W.P.(C)No.15344/08 -2- ground, the writ petitioners have pressed before the CAT. It appears, the period of break which stood in the way of regularisation of services of the respondent was stated as 52 days before the CAT. The CAT after perusing the records found that the break was below 30 days and therefore it was liable to be condoned. Relevant portion of the judgment of the CAT reads as follows: “ 10. We are also required to consider whether there was really any long break of 52 days in the service of the applicant as he has contended that out of the 52 days the applicant was on leave for 30 days and that leave was sanctioned by the controlling officer. To satisfy ourselves, we called for the service record of the applicant and the respondents have produced the service documents in three volumes which comprise the leave account and two volumes of the service book and loose sheets containing the particulars of casual service verified and signed by the concerned officers. The Leave account clearly shows that the applicant was granted commuted leave for the period 1.7.93 to 31.7.93 for 31 days and on 1.8.93 to 5.8.93 for 5 days and that he was transferred to INS Venduruthy W.P.(C)No.15344/08 -3- on appointment as LDC (casual) on 16.8.93. (vide entries on the last page of the leave account. Further there are 14 loose sheets concerning the service particulars of the applicant from the initial appointment on 1989 which also carry the stamp and signature of the officer who verified the service. The Entry at page 4 (written in pencil) is to the following effect. “Reported from CTW Cochin on appointment as LDC casual in INS Venduruthy on a pay of Rs.950/pm plus allowances as admissible from time to time for a period of 85 days from 01 April 1993”. The next entry is “Reported at Cochin on appointment from 16th August 1993 to 27th Sept.1993. Hence, it is clear that he had worked from 25th June to 31st July on expiry of the first spell of 85 days ending on 1st July 1993 he had taken medical leave and on expiry of leave he had reported again on 16th August from which date he has now been regularised. The Service Book Vol.1 at pages 10 to 13 also contains the very same entries but there are no entries regarding the leave availed by the applicant in the service book which record is W.P.(C)No.15344/08 -4- kept separately as Leave Account. Had the respondents verified the leave account also and tallied the entries with the entries in the Service Book, this omission would not have occurred. Hence as borne out by the record, the applicant has a break of less than 30 days only, even assuming that the respondents could apply such a limit in his case.” The above finding is a finding of fact with which this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So, the contention of the writ petitioners that there being a break of 52 days, the past casual service cannot be regularised is untenable. Apart from that there is unexplained delay of one year in filing this writ petition. On the above grounds, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn