IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 158 of 2010(S) --------------------------- OA.133/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 -------------------------------------------------- 1. MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BSNL, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 33. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, PATHANAMTHITTA DIVISION, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANTS IN O.A. NO.133/2009 --------------------------------------------- 1. SHYAMALA M.L., SENIOR TELECOM OFFICE ASSISTANT (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM (BSNL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. C.G.MOHANAN, SENIOR TELECOM OFFICE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, KARUGACHAL, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. M.K.KRISHNAN KUTTY, SENIOR TELECOM ASSISTANT (RETD), CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE, PUNALOOR, NOW RESIDING AT "KRISHNA NIVAS", KOODAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. 4. POUTHRAN S., SENIOR TELECOM OFFICE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE GMT, SANCHAR BHAVAN, BSNL, PALAKKAD - 678 001. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) FOR R1 & 4 SRI.K.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR R1 & 4 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P. (CAT) No. 158 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The challenge is against Ext.P1 order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal on an application filed by the respondents for their regularisation as telephone operators. The contention of the petitioners is that respondents are appointed as temporary hands intended to serve when telephone operators go on leave and therefore they are not entitled to regularisation. However, the finding of the Tribunal is that respondents came along with six others, and all six others' services were regularised which again is based on Tribunal's order in O.A.No. 661 of 1991. Admittedly respondents are in service after three months' training from 1983 and 1984 onwards. In fact, even those people who are junior to the respondents are regularised in service. The Tribunal has clearly found from communication issued by the petitioners themselves that there are vacancies existing in the State and so much so respondents' claim deserves to be considered in the OP (CAT) 158/2010 2 same way, the Tribunal ordered in O.A.No. 661 of 1991. On our query, standing counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Tribunal's order in O.A.No. 661 of 1991 was accepted by the department and they have in fact implemented the same. Since respondents' herein are similarly placed as those already regularised pursuant to Tribunal's earlier order, we feel Tribunal rightly granted the relief to respondents who are similarly placed as those who are already absorbed in service. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the O.P.(CAT) and the same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk OP (CAT) 158/2010 3