IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30653 of 2006(S) ------------------------------------- OA.429/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,NEW DELHI. 2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF ARMY HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN COMMAND, PUNE-1. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NAVAL ACADEMY, KOCHI, NAVAL BASE POST, KOCHI-682004. BY ADVS. MR.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG MR.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- G.SRINIVASAN, S/O.LATE P.K.GANGADHARAN, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, O/O.CHIEF ENGINEER (NAVAL ACADEMY), KOCHI-682 004. R1 BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30653/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE OA. NO.248/2003 OF THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM DTD. 15.3.03. P2:- COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN OA. NO.248/03 DTD. NIL. P3:- COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN DTD. 15.10.04 IN OA. NO.248/03. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA. NO.248/03 OF THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM DTD. 24.2.06. EXT.R1:- COPY OF THE INDEX CARD, BEARING NO.312897 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.30653 of 2006-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The respondent filed OA.No.248 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. He claimed that he was offered the post of Lower Division Clerk in Military Engineering Service under the jurisdiction of CWE (P), Ganganagar, Rajastan and was given a posting at Southern Command, GE (WS), Visakhapatnam. In terms of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Lower Division Clerk/Upper Division Clerk of MES, the basic qualification required for the post is matriculation or equivalent examination of a recognised University or Board and there is no direct recruitment to the post of Upper Division Clerks, it was contended. The applicant claimed that though he joined the service in 1978 and became eligible for promotion to the higher posts in the year 1986, having WP(C).No.30653 of 2006-S. -: 2 :- regard to the rules which provide for promotion of 75% of Lower Division Clerks with minimum eight years regular service, the petitioner stagnated. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record was concluded that the applicant was granted inter- divisional posting and transfer on 12.6.1982 along with Sasi, who was appointed initially on 1.7.1972. The Tribunal held on facts that the applicant and Sasi were similarly placed persons and the Department had admit the applicant's plea in the Original Application that without reckoning the seniority of the applicant from the date of his initial appointment with effect from 1.7.1972, Sasi could not have been given promotion as Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 30.4.1988. Accordingly, taking note of the fact that the principles for giving credit to previous service to the displaced Government servants were found to be applicable in the case of the petitioner also, the Tribunal granted relief directing the official respondents to pass appropriate orders WP(C).No.30653 of 2006-S. -: 3 :- within a period of three months, having regard to what is stated in the decision of the Tribunal. It is categorically held by the Tribunal that Sasi and the applicant were similarly placed and therefore the seniority of the applicant has to be determined on the basis of the date of his initial appointment, for promotion to the higher posts. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the authorities to reconsider the claim of the applicant and grant relief accordingly by promoting him as Upper Division Clerk. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the final order of the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN (Judge) P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) Kvs/-