IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 35766 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.206/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-3 2. THE SR. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY ,PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. K.GUNASEKHARAN, CLERK, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE STORES LIMITED NO.AA 493, RAILWAY COLONY ERODE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHT DIVISION 2. P.PALANIAPPAN, CLERK RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE STORES LIMITED NO.AA 493, RAILWAY COLONY ERODE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHT DIVISION . ADV. SRI.SIBY J.MONIPPALLY FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.206/2007 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES OF CAT, ERNAKULAM. P2: TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A. NO.206/2007 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE. P3: TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER IN O.A. NO.206/2007 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE. P4: TRUE COPY OF ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT DT. .1.2008 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE IN O.A. NO.206/2007 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM. P5: .DO. .DO. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.5.3.2008 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM IN O.A. NO.206/2007. TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.35766 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways- petitioner herein and Adv. Sri.Sibi Monippally appearing for respondents. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the claim of the respondents who are employees of Railway Co-operative Societies for considering absorption to the Railways as Group D employees. Admittedly respondents were working in a Railway Co-operative Society until it became defunct in 1992. For 7 years the Society remained defunct and during this period, respondents were deployed in another Society, though not connected with Railway. However, on revival of the Railway Society, they came back and joined the very same society. The Railway's case is that the period of service the respondents were serving the other Society should not be reckoned for considering their eligibility because under Ext.R3 (e) notification three years' service in the Railway Co-operative Society 2 as on 10.6.1997 is mandatory for employment. However, counsel for the respondents submitted that employment of the respondents for a temporary period was given in another society by reason of respondents' employment in the defunct society. In other words, their employment in the Railway Co-operative Society was protected during the period the Society remained defunct. We do not find anything wrong in the Tribunal treating the service of the respondents in the other society on a protective basis as eligible service in a Railway society for considering them for appointment as Group D employees. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the W.P.(C) and the same is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms