IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 778 of 2010(S) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA.167/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ERNAKULAM SUB DIVISION, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI - 24. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ERNAKULAM DIVISION, KOCHI - 11. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): / APPLICANT --------------- G.G.MOHANA SHENOY, S/O.LATE SHRI GOPALA SHENOY, PART TIME SWEEPER CUM SCAVENGER, ELAMAKKARA P.O. & AIMS PONEKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682024. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- OP (CAT) No.778 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This OP(CAT) is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in an Original Application directing that the respondent be given preference in employment as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer at Elamakkara Post Office. 2. We have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the Department and have gone through the order of the CAT. 3. What we find from the order of the CAT is that when the post, which itself is an Extra Departmental post, arose in the year 2009, the respondent had already put in 7 years' service as a Part Time Sweeper in two Post Offices under the Department. The respondent relied on a circular issued by the Government on 06/06/1988 giving preference to casual labourers, who have worked for 240 days in an year, for appointment as ED employees. The CAT after examining the claim of the respondent, found that the conditions of the notification are generally satisfied except for OP(CAT) No.778/2010 -2- the fact that the respondent was not a full time employee, nor was he sponsored by Employment Exchange. However, the CAT took into account an earlier order issued in the case of a lady, who while working as a Part Time Sweeper was accorded the benefit of the above Government circular. The said decision of the CAT was confirmed by the High Court. In this case, the only difference is that the respondent was not sponsored by Employment Exchange. However, the finding of the CAT is that he has a valid registration in the Employment Exchange for the last several years. We do not think there is any justification to interfere with the benefit granted to the respondent by the CAT by taking into account the 8 years' service of the respondent with the Department as a Casual Employee, though on a part time basis. We, therefore, dismiss the OP(CAT). However, we make it clear that our judgment need not be treated as a complete interpretation of the Government circular referred to above for declaring eligibility. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg