IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25647 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.709/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): 1. K.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, EX-CASUAL LABOURER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT "DWARAKA", KARIYERI HOUSE, MAKAVOOR P.O., ERANHIKKAL, ELATHUR (VIA), KOZHIKODE-673 303. 2. UDAYARAJ JANARDHANAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.V.K.JANARDHANAN, EX-CASUAL LABOURER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT "USHANIRA", NO.29/2241, PIPELINE ROAD, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 012. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, CPV DIVISION, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER & JOINT SECRETARY(CPV), MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 3. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 25647 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. Petitioners are the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. They approached the Tribunal with the following prayers. (i) Declare that the applicants are entitled to be granted the benefit of temporary status on completion of 206 days of casual service as specified in Annexure AB order of the Government and as declared in Annexure A9 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, and direct the respondents accordingly. (ii) Direct the respondents to grant the benefit of the declaration in para 8(i) above forthwith, with all consequential benefits emanating there from; The Tribunal passed the following order. The stipulation 206 days in a year meant by 10.09.1993 itself and in the case of the applicants, according to the respondents they had put in only 187/184 days in a year. If so, they may not be entitled to temporary status. However when those who had put in less number of days of service or who had been engaged in the subsequent batch could be afforded temporary status, albeit under the High Court's order, there should be no reason to afford the applicants the same status. W.P.(C) NO.25647 of 2009 2 However, the respondents have, relying upon the decision in Umadevi, contend that the applicants cannot become entitled to regularization. Admittedly, the petitioners before the High Court have put in less number of days of service compared to the applicants herein. As such, the applicants cannot be put in a position worse than that of the petitioners before the High Court. At the same time, the decision of the High Court has been challenged in the Apex Court. If so, as and when the decision is given by the Apex Court, the same should hold good for the applicants also. The applicants may not be afforded temporary status as on date but in case the result of the S.L.P goes in favour of the petitioners before the High Court, then, the same benefits shall be extended to the applicants also, notwithstanding the fact that they may not be parties before the Apex Court. As on date, the applicants may not be granted temporary status. 2. Challenging the order, the present writ petition is filed. It is the contention of the petitioners that no SLP has been filed against Ext.P2 (A9 judgment) in O.P No.34447/01. Our limited enquiry also reveals the same. When the matter came up for admission before us on 22.9.09, we directed the Assistant Solicitor General to file a statement as to whether any SLP is pending. Two weeks time was granted. Though no statement is filed, we are informed that SLP 2722/09 is pending. We find on verification that SLP 2722/09 pertains to an entirely different case, to recruitment/transfer/compassionate appointment in a Delhi case. Be that as it may, the respondents have not challenged the order passed by the C.A.T. The Tribunal has found and held that the applicants also will be entitled to the same benefits as those covered W.P.(C) NO.25647 of 2009 3 by Ext.P2(A9) judgment. If that be so, and in case applicants/petitioners before us have put in more service than that of the petitioners covered by Ext.P2 (A9) judgment, there is no point in not extending the same benefit to the applicants/petitioners before us, of course subject to the result of the SLP if any, filed against Ext.P2 (A9) judgment. The petitioners undertake before us that they will be also be governed by the directions if any, issued by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above. The above submission is recorded. 3. On the basis of the above recorded submission, there will be a direction to respondents to extend the same benefits to the petitioners, as those granted to the petitioners covered by Ext.P2 (A9) judgment. Needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE spc