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 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 35521 of 2007(S) --------------------------------------- OA.122/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O.,CHENNAI-3. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN, SR.SC., RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- R. BALAN (ALIAS) R. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. RAJAMANICKAM, AGED 49 (EX.CASUAL LABOURER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION), RAJAJI STREET BALAMAPURAM, VANGAL ROAD, KARUR-1,TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY, SMT.D.HEERA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35521 of 2007(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE O.A. NO.122/2007 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY RESPONDENT IN CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION M.A.NO.142/2007 IN O.A.NO.122/2007 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION (MA) FILED BY RAILWAY IN M.A. IN O.A. NO.122/2007 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A. NO.122/2007 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/09/2007 IN O.A. NO.122/2007 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:35521 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st October, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the writ petition is not only on respondent's identity but his age for the purpose of employment. According to the railways the respondent has crossed 48 years of age whereas the upper age limit for appointment for members of OBC is 43. It is for the respondent to prove that he is within the age limit. Respondent himself has declared his age as 49 years in the application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The date of birth shown in the labour card is 10/4/1955 and therefore, respondent is obviously over aged for appointment. Counsel for the respondent submitted that this Court has in similar cases held that age limit is no bar if the employee has more than 360 days for service. It is for the respondent to produce the period of service he had and if this Court has through other decisions held that those people with more than 360 days of services should be appointed even if they are over aged then respondent would be WPC 35521/2007 2 given the benefit on being producing proof of employment for more than 360 days. 2. Writ petition is disposed of directing railways to consider respondent's case in the light of what is stated above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 35521/2007 3