IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4603 of 2009(W) ------------------------- OA.23/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI 600 003, 2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 3. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM 695 014 4. SENIOR DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM 695 014. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT: --------------- S.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. G. SEBASTIAN, RETIRED CLOCK & WATCH REPAIRER, S& T DEPARTMENT SOUTHERN RAIWAY, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT T.C. 24/911, VATTAVILAKAM, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.4603 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.23/2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are the writ petitioners. The respondent herein was the applicant. The applicant was initially engaged as a Casual Labourer Blacksmith from 21.8.1972 under the Inspector of Works/Southern Railway/ Construction/Nagercoil. He was regularised with effect from 21.1.1980 and posted as Clock and Watch Repairer Grade III. He got promotion as Grade II and Grade I in the same post and finally retired from service on 31.7.2007. For pensionary benefits his service from 21.1.1980 to 31.7.2007 alone was reckoned. He claimed 50% of the casual service rendered by him, after acquisition of temporary status on 21.2.1973, should also be reckoned for pensionary benefits. The said claim was resisted by the respondents contending that the petitioner was working in a project and therefore a Project Casual Labourer is W.P.(C) No.4603/2009 2 not entitled to get temporary status on completion of 180 days service. The Tribunal on considering the materials on record found that though he was a casual labourer in the construction wing, as it was not a work charged project, the decision of the Apex Court in L.Robert D'Souza's case [1982 SCC(L&S) 124] will be applicable to the case on hand. Based on that finding, the Original Appliation was allowed directing the Railways to grant the relief sought for by the applicant. 2. The respondents have filed this writ petition, stating that some of the decisions of this Court relied on by the Tribunal in support of its decision has been taken up before the Apex Court and special leave petitions in them are pending consideration of the Apex Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Railways prayed that, if, ultimately, those decisions relied on by the C.A.T. are reversed, the writ petitioners may be given liberty to apply the said decision of the Apex Court in the case of the respondent herein also. But, we notice that the finding that the engagement of the respondent, in the construction wing was in fact not an engagement in a project, is a finding of fact. W.P.(C) No.4603/2009 3 Therefore there is no question of applying any general principles laid down by the Apex Court to the facts of this case. Therefore, we feel that the prayer of the writ petitioners cannot be granted. The very same contentions raised in several similar writ petitions, which were dismissed by this Court, are raised in this writ petition also. The finding of the Tribunal that the applicant/respondent was not working in a project, is a finding of fact, which we cannot disturb under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners prayed that they may be given two months time from today to implement the direction of this Court. The said prayer is granted. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps