IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3065 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------- OA.238/2007 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-600 003. 2. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-695 014. 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-695 014. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- A.PAUL NADAR, S/O.ARI KRISHNAN NADAR, RETIRED SR.GATEKEEPER, OFFICE OF THE SECTION ENGINEER/P.WAY, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, NAGERCOIL, RESIDING AT BEACH ROAD, LEEPURAM P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. M.C. CHERIAN, ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.3065 OF 2008-S -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, , 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.238/2007 which was disposed of by Ext.P6 order of the C.A.T, Ernakulam Bench. The applicant before the C.A.T worked as a Khalasi from 11.10.1972 to 27.9.1980, the date on which he was appointed as regular Gate Keeper. Though he was engaged in the construction wing, his casual service was not in the project wing, it was contended. According to him, he should be treated as having acquired temporary status on completion of six months casual service. So, 50% service rendered by him after acquisition of temporary status should also be reckoned for pensionary benefits along with regular service, it was claimed. The said claim having not been accepted by the competent authority, the applicant moved the C.A.T, Ernakulam Bench by filing the above O.A. 2. The respondents in the O.A, who are the writ petitioners, resisted the application contending that the applicant was working in the project wing and therefore, he is not entitled to get temporary status after six months' service. That being so, 50% WPC.NO.3065/08 . 2 of the casual service cannot be counted for granting the pensionary benefits, it was submitted. 3. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and upheld the contention of the applicant. The relevant portion of Ext.P6 judgment where the above finding entered reads as follows: “Arguments were heard and documents perused. The following points would go to show that the applicant's earlier services as Casual Labourer cannot but were treated as one of Open Line, as qualifying for terminal benefit purposes at the proportionate ratio prescribed in the rules: a. Casual labour certificate was issued by the IOW (Construction ) Southern Railway, Nagarcoil. b. The applicant was regularly appointed as Gate Keeper with effect from 27.9.80. c. There appeared to be no direct recruitment to the post of Gate Keeper and always the past services are taken into consideration. d. The fact that the applicant's regular appointment preceded implementation of Inder Pal Yadav's case shows that the applicant's past services were not for project work. e. As per the decision in the Apex Court's judgment 'D' Sousa all construction works do not come under project labour. f. The applicant's case comes under Rule WPC.NO.3065/08 . 3 2501 of the IREM” 4. Based on the above finding, the reliefs claimed by the applicant were granted. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this writ petition is filed. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Railways Sri.M.C. Cherian reiterated the very same contentions raised before the C.A.T. According to him, going by the norms contained in Ext.P7, the construction wing in which the respondent was engaged should be treated as project wing and the decision of the Apex Court in 'D' Sousa has no application to this case. 6. We heard the learned counsel Sri.T.C. Govinda Swamy for the respondent. The learned counsel brought to our notice that this Court has dismissed several writ petitions filed by the Railways raising the very same contentions. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in W.P.C.Nos.33412/05 and 13245/06. 7. We notice that the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent was not engaged in project work is a finding of fact WPC.NO.3065/08 . 4 based on the materials placed before the Tribunal. Going by the reasoning of the Tribunal, we think that the said finding cannot be described as perverse or based on no materials. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with Ext.P6. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl