IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 1478 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------------- OA.NO.85/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER -------------------- KUMARI.R.BABY,D/O.RAJAMMA,AGED 58 YEARS, WORKING AS U.D.C, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, GOVT. OF INDIA, GROUND FLOOR, B-WING, C.G.O.COMPLEX, POOMKULAM, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BORAD CASTING, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, FILMS DIVISION, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, GOVT.OF INDIA, GROUND FLOOR, B-WING, C.G.O.COMPLES POOMKULAM, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE CHIEF PRODUCER, FILMS DIVISION, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, GOVT. OF INDIA, 24. DR.DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI-400 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, FILMS DIVISION, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, GOVT.OF INDIA, 24 DR.DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI-400 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= O.P.(CAT) No. 1478 of 2011 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Petitioner is working as an Upper Division Clerk in Films Division Office under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. In this Original Petition she impugns the order in O.A. No.85 of 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. 2. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the respondents had failed to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal in an earlier proceeding to treat her absence as duty, from October 18,2007 till date of her joining duty in Mumbai, for all purposes and to regularize the said period by granting her leave as admissible to her. 3. The Tribunal found that the respondents had complied with the direction issued by it and granted her all the benefits, adjusting all categories of leave available to OP(CAT) 1478/2011 2 her. The details of the leave accounts furnished by the respondents have been extracted by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 4. As rightly noticed by the Tribunal the earlier direction was to treat the period of absence as duty and grant her leave as admissible to her. The Tribunal, in our view, is justified in dismissing the application. 5. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal way back in August, 2009. This Original Petition has been filed after a lapse of more than 1 year 8 months. There is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay. For that reason also the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.