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 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19324 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.124/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-600 003. 2. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SR.SC,RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M.L.SHAJI, TECHNICAL MATE, SECTION ENGINEER'S OFFICE/WORKS/CONSTRUCTION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KOLLAM. 2. REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 19324 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th July, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.124/2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The 1st respondent herein was the applicant therein. The applicant, who was working as a Technical Mate, approached the C.A.T., seeking regularisation in service. He was a casual labourer conferred with temporary status. He was appointed under the dying-in-harness scheme also. He claimed the benefit of clause (ii) of para 3 of Board's letter dated 9.4.1997. The relevant portion of that Board order is quoted in para 9 of the impugned order of the C.A.T. The writ petitioners resisted that claim by filing a reply statement. But, considering the rival claims, the Tribunal, by Ext.P5 order, allowed the O.A., holding that the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of clause (ii) of para 3 of the Board's letter dated 9.4.1997 mentioned above. In the result, there was a direction to appoint him regularly as a Technical Mate, which is WPC 19324/08 2 a Group C post. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the said order of the C.A.T. 2. Going by the grounds, we notice that except Ground C, all others are usual general grounds like the ground “the judgment of the court below is against law and facts and circumstances of the case”, found in all appeals. Ground C, which says that a casual employee's dependent can be given appointment only as a casual employee, is against the case of the writ petitioners in their reply statement. No specific ground is raised, which has to be adverted to by this Court with reference to the finding of the C.A.T that the 1st respondent/applicant is entitled to be appointed in the 25% quota provided in para 3(ii) of Railway Board's letter dated 9.4.1997. In the absence of any valid ground, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order Ext.P5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/