IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14664 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.180/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. POSTMASTER, KUNNAMKULAM POST OFFICE,KUNNAMKULAM. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE THRISSUR DIVISION. 3. POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION KOCHI-18 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- P.U. AMMINI, W/O. P.O. UKKURU, CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, KUNNAMKULAM POST OFFICE KUNNAMKULAM RESIDING AT PALANGIL HOUSE SENOR GROUND, KUNNAMKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14664 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.180/06 are the writ petitioners. Respondent was the applicant in the said O.A. The applicant filed Exhibit P1 O.A. challenging Annexure A5 order to the extent it does not provide ½ hour lunch break while computing her working hours. She also prayed to set aside Annexure A4 to the extent it does not treat her as a full time employee. She also sought the consequential relief to treat her as a full time contingent employee. 2. As per the direction of the CAT in O.A.No.824/02, the competent authority ordered to dispense with the service of another part time contingent employee who was over aged and to add her working hours also to that of the applicant. But, while computing the total working hours as per Annexure A5, it was decided that the total working hours will be only 7 ½ hours. Unless 8 hours working time is there, she cannot be treated as a full time casual worker as per the existing rules. Feeling aggrieved by those proceedings to the extent they were against her, the O.A. was filed. 3. The writ petitioners who were respondents in the O.A. W.P.(C)No.14664/08 -2- resisted the prayers in the O.A. by filing Exhibit P2 reply statement. Exhibit P3 is the rejoinder of the applicant. The writ petitioners filed Exhibit P4 additional reply statement. After hearing both sides, the O.A. was allowed by Exhibit P5. Based on the materials on record, it was found, practically the employee has to be in the Office from 7AM to 6PM. She has to come some time ahead of the time by which the office starts functioning. After the closure of the office hours, she has to be in the office for some more time. The Tribunal also noticed that in similar circumstances by Annexure A9 another casual worker has been allowed to count 30 minutes as lunch break. If the same is followed in the case of the respondent herein, applicant in the O.A., she can be treated as a full time casual worker. 4. The respondents while defending the case raised a plea that at present the working hours have been re-fixed as 5 hours 30 minutes and the Tribunal did not accept the said plea as there was no change in the sweeping area after the fixation of working hours as per Annexure A5 and during the pendency of the application. Finally, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. holding that the applicant is liable to be treated as a full time contingent employee with effect from 1.4.2005, the date on which the services of the over aged casual employee was dispensed with. The Tribunal, having regard to Annexure A9, took the view that 30 minutes should also be added to the working hours as lunch break. 5. We find that the above view taken by the Tribunal is a just and W.P.(C)No.14664/08 -3- fair view. The petitioner has produced Annexure A9 document in the case of another employee of the Postal Department who has been allowed 30 minutes lunch break. There is no reason why the said benefit should not be extended to the respondent/applicant. We fully agree with the above reasoning of the Tribunal and also with its conclusions. We feel that this writ petition filed against a contingent employee who was working under the respondents since 1981 is an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn