IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 1680 of 2011 (O) --------------------------------------------- OA.147/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. SMT.SHEELA KURIEN, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.M.K.JOY, EX CASUAL LABOURER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT "MANAVALAN HOUSE', KARAYAMPARAMPU, KURUMASSERY P.O., ALUVA. 2. SMT.P.A.LEKHA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.A.P.JOSE, EX CASUAL LABOURER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT 'EDAKKARAVAYALLIL', AIRAPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110 001 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY (CPV) & CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110 001 3. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.S.G. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 1680 of 2011 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the original application No.147/2009 filed before the CAT. Ext.P2: True copy of the reply statement filed by the Respondents in O.A.147/2009 before the CAT. Ext.P3: True copy of the order dated 10-8-2009 in O.A.No.709/2008 of the CAT. Ext.P4: True copy of the judgment dated 21.6.2010 in W.P.(C) No.32981/2009 of this Hon'ble Court. Ext.P5: True copy of the order dated 8-6-2010 in O.A.No.147/2009 of the cAT. Ext.P6: True copy of the order dated 7-10-2010 in R.A.No.30/2010 in O.A.147/2009 of the CAT. // True copy // P.A. to Judge A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(CAT)No.1680 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Petitioners in this original petition were admittedly engaged by the Passport office at Kochi on a casual basis in 1992. It is on record that they were engaged in Trivandrum also for sometime. But according to the petitioners they were disengaged sometime in 1998. Still later, petitioner No.2 was engaged again in February 2000 and she worked on a casual basis till November 2000. Petitioner No.1 did not join duty on her re-engagement inspite of repeated notices. According to her, she could not do so since she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. 2. It appears that in 2005 petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench challenging the action of the department in denying engagement to them. The Tribunal by its order in O.A.530/05, directed the authorities concerned to consider their representations and take a decision in the matter. Accordingly, the matter was considered and the competent authority passed Annexure A5 order dated September 7, 2005 informing the petitioners that at that time there was no need to engage any more casual workers either in any of the Regional Passport Offices or the Passport Office. They were further informed that they had failed to report for duty, despite repeated notices, on earlier occassions when need arose. Their failure to report for duty was without valid reasons. 3. The above order was challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal in O.A.147/09 contending interalia that some of their juniors had been engaged O.P.(CAT)No.1680 OF 2011 :: 2 :: recently and some freshers were also given engagement overlooking their legitimate claim. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioners and the department, disposed of the original application by the impugned order with a direction that the department “shall consider engagement of the petitioners as and when the need arises in future in preference to their juniors and freshers”. 4. It is contended by Sri.Shafik, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the view taken by the Tribunal is wholly arbitrary and illegal. He points out that after disposal of the original application, petitioners have moved a review application pointing out that in an identical situation the Tribunal had passed Ext.P3 order by which certain benefits were given to some of the similarly situated candidates who were juniors to the petitioners. The Tribunal, however, did not entertain the review application. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal ought to have considered the plight of these two ladies who had served the department always on casual basis. Before reengaging their juniors and freshers, the Department ought to have considered the petitioners. It is submitted that there is clear violation of the principles of fairplay and natural justice. 5. It may be noticed at the outset that the department had turned down the request of the petitioners way back in 2005 as could be seen from Annexure A5 order dated September 7, 2005. But the petitioners kept quiet and did not choose to challenge the said order for more than five years. There is not even any attempt to explain the inordinate delay. Still further, the department had a O.P.(CAT)No.1680 OF 2011 :: 3 :: specific case that the petitioners were directed to appear for joining duty on casual basis on more than one occassions. Though repeated notices were issued to them, they refused to comply with the direction. Thereafter, the department had turned towards other candidates. It was further pointed out by the department that at present there was no need for engaging casual workers. It was in the above circumstances that the department had turned down the request made by the petitioners for re-engagement. This order, though passed in 2005, was never challenged by the petitioners. It has become final as mentioned earlier. 6. The department stuck to their stand that the petitioners cannot be engaged now, since there was no need for engaging any casual workers. It was therefore that the Tribunal had directed the department to consider engaging the petitioners as and when the need arises in future in preference to their juniors and freshers. 7. In our view, the Tribunal has committed no illegality or irregularity while passing the above order warranting our interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes