IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 21528 of 2007(S) -------------------------- OA.764/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, O/O. POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI - 682 018. 2. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI - 682 018. 3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI - 110 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT : ------------- N.B.JAYAN, GROUP D, POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI RESIDING AT MALARIPADAM HOUSE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682 020. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 21528 OF 2007- S -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the pay of a casual employee, who has temporary status, should be protected on his regularisation or whether the increments drawn by him while working as casual employee with temporary status could be ignored and his salary on regularisation should be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale. The said point is already covered against the petitioners by the decision of this Court in W.P.(C).No.1400/2005, which is produced as Annexure-A7 along with Ext.P1 and also by a Full Bench decision of the C.A.T. Following those decisions, the Tribunal rendered Ext.P3 judgment ordering protection of the pay of the casual employee with temporary status on his regularisation. We find nothing illegal or irregular with the said direction of the C.A.T in Ext.P3 order as the same is squarely covered by the W.P.(C)NO.21528/07 2 decision of this Court in W.P.(C).No.1440/2005. So, the writ petition challenging that order fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl W.P.(C)NO.21528/07 3