IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22154 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.769/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.ARUMAINAYAGAM, S/O. PONNUMUTHU, MOOTHENVILAI, VIZHUNTHAIAMBALAM P.O. KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 2. R. ALPHONSA, S/O. RAJIAH, SANAL VILAI POTHATHAND P.O. KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN CHENNAI. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAILWAY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI. N.B. SUNIL NATH -S.C. FOR RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO. 22154 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners were applicants 2 and 3 in O.A. No. 769 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The said Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal granting relief to the first applicant only. Applicants 2 and 3, the petitioners herein, claimed regularisation in service on the ground that they have worked as casual labourers under the Railways before 1.1.1981 for 405 days and 669 days respectively. According to them, they were retrenched on 5.12.1980 and, therefore, they are entitled to be included in the Live Register of casual employees who are to be considered for regularisation as Group D employees. But, the petitioners failed to submit their application for inclusion of their name in the Live Register before 31.3.1987, the cut off date fixed by the Apex Court. The Tribunal, therefore, found that as the applicants failed to submit the application in time, their case cannot be considered. For taking that view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in O.P. No.22849 of 1999 also. Feeling aggrieved by the said W.P.(C) NO. 22154/2009 2 order, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P10, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that though the Supreme Court has fixed the cut off date as 31.3.1987 for filing the application, it does not mean that applications submitted beyond that date cannot be entertained. We find it difficult to accept the said contention. Going by the relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court, which is quoted in the impugned order, we are of the view that 31.3.1987 being the cut off date, applications submitted beyond that date cannot be entertained. We fully agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court on this point in the judgment in O.P. No.22849 of 1999. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 22154/2009 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C)NO.22154/2009 JUDGMENT 10th August, 2009