IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5521 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.300/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER & JOINT SECRETARY (CPV), MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 3. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE O.A.: --------------- SMT. P. SUDHA BAI, W/O. P. BALAKRISHNAN UPPER DIVISION CLERK, PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT 'CHITTEZHATH HOUSE', KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5521 OF 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents, in O.A.No.300/2008, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondent herein was the applicant. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Original Application. The applicant was initially appointed as casual labourer in the Regional Passport Office, Kochin, on 19.3.1982 on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. She was regularised in service with effect from 12.6.1985. The said regularisation was based on the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has become final. The petitioner moved the competent authority, seeking regularisation in service from the initial date of entry, that is, with effect from 5.5.1982 and also seeking consequential benefits. Her claim in this regard has been rejected by Annexure A1 order by the competent authority. Therefore, challenging that order and seeking consequential reliefs, this Original Application was filed. The respondents resisted the application only on one ground, that is, her claim is not W.P.(C) No.5521/2009 2 permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [2006(4) SCC 1]. The Tribunal overruled the objection and granted all the reliefs sought by her, except arrears of salary. The respondents have preferred this writ petition, challenging the said order of the C.A.T., a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3, raising the very same contention built up based on Umadevi's decision (supra). 2. We notice that the decision in Umadevi's case (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. The applicant was regularised in service as early as on 12.6.1985, based on the order of the C.A.T. Therefore, the present attempt of the writ petitioners to rely on the decision of the Umadevi's case to deny benefits to her is plainly untenable. We find nothing wrong with the decision of the C.A.T. in having rejected that contention. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps