IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 37704 OF 2008(S) {OA.657/2007 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.ALPHONSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MUDIYAPPAN, (EX-CASUAL LABOURER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION) RESIDING AT: ITI ROAD, MANALIKKARAI P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SMT.R.R.REJITHA SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM - 14. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (P) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM - 14. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN, SR.SC. FOR RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).NO. 37704 OF 2008 :: 2 :: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.21777 OF 2007 DATED 29.11.2007 RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2008 IN O.A.NO.657/2007 - HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.657/2007 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN O.A.No.657/2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.784/07 FILED ALONG WITH ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY IN M.A.NO.784/07 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19TH JUNE 1996 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.NO.1706/1994. //true copy// P.S. To Judge SK/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37704 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 O R D E R THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The writ petitioner, claiming to be a retrenched casual labourer, having worked in the construction wing of Southern Railway from 6.1.1979 to 5.12.1980, sought relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal, on the basis of certain directions in the earlier round of litigation between the parties. 2. The retrenched labourers were eligible for empanelment, but the petitioner could not get any favourable order. He filed O.A.No.457/00, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 27.7.2000. An application for review was filed. That was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Thereafter he moved this court by filing O.P.No.19236/01. He had to ultimately concede before this court, through his counsel, that he has to go back and show sufficient materials. The submissions then before this court was that the petitioner has sufficient W.P.(C).No.37704 of 2008 :: 2 :: materials in support of his claim. He was, therefore, given the privilege to move the establishment afresh. That direction was issued by this court on 2.7.2001. 3. The establishment, thereafter, rejected the case of the applicant again on 29.11.2001 stating that sufficient materials have not been provided by the applicant to substantiate his contention that he had taken steps to have his name included in the Live Register before the cut off date, 31.3.1987. 4. However, the applicant went to the Tribunal only in 2007 challenging the order dated 29.11.2001. There was an inordinate delay of 1777 days. Yet, the Tribunal showed the courtesy of looking into the materials placed by the applicant. It was stated that apart from a postal receipt produced, there was nothing in support of his claim. The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay of nearly 6 years in filing the original application against the decision dated 29.11.2001. W.P.(C).No.37704 of 2008 :: 3 :: 5. The Tribunal appears to have rightly observed that the applicant had missed the bus and though this court gave a new lease of life to his litigation, the applicant could not place any material that was worth consideration to show that he had taken sufficient steps to get his name entered in the Live Register before 31.3.1987. 6. With the aforesaid fact situation, we do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//