IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28552 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.471/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NEDUMANGAD SUB DIVISION, NEDUMANGAD 695 541 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SOUTH POSTAL DIVISION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENRAL, KERALA CIRCLE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. GEETHAKUMAR.C, GDS MD-11,IRINCHAYAM PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 581 2. VISHNU R.S, TC.NO.27/1124, VANCHIYOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 102 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.28552 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioner. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and after going through the Tribunal's order, we do not find any merit in the petitioner's case because Tribunal granted relief to the first respondent for the reason the he was in the service of the appellant for 10 years, though appointed under stop-gap arrangement when somebody was kept out of service. Admittedly, first respondent is still in service and has completed more than ten years. The benefit claimed by the first respondent is under Annexure-6 which provides for regularisation in service of who have put in atleast three years of service. The only difference between the first respondent and others who are entitled to benefit under Annexure-6 is in the selection procedure in as much as according to the appellants, first respondent was appointed on adhoc 2 basis in the vacancy and he was not recruited to the post. We do not think this will affect first respondent's entitlement for benefit of Annexure-6. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the W.P.(C) and the same is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms