IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 30859 of 2007(S) -------------------------- OA.839/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: --------------- H.NASSAR, S/O HAMZA, EX. CASUAL LABOURER, RESIDING AT NO.50/4350, POOKARATHOTTAM, OLAVAKKOT POST, PALGHAT. ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.D.HEERA SMT.R.R.REJITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30859 of 2007(S) APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------------- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19.6.96 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM IN O.A.NO.1706/94 P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.27.1.03 OF CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER/MADRAS. P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS/NOTICE DT. 12.3.03 OF DPO/PGT ALONG WITH RELVANT PORTION OF “LIST”. P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.2.4.03 OF DPO/PGT ALONG WITH THE SINGED LIST OF SUPERVISORY OFFICIALS. P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.10.2.05 OF SR. DPO/PGT ALONG WITH RELVANT PORTION OF “LIST” P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.8.4.05 OF SR. DPO/PGT. P7:- TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.839/06 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. P8(A) :- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2007 IN O.A. NO.839/06 P8(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007 IN O.A.NO.839/06. P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DT.12.7.07 IN O.A.NO.839/2006 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.1.8.07 IN O.A.NO.839/06 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM P11:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUEGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.9637/1995 AND 9638/95 OF SUPREME COURT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------- WP(C) No.30859 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A No. 839/06 filed by the respondent herein, praying for a direction to the Railway Administration to include his name in the list of retrenched casual labourers in the Palakkad Division of Southern Railway and also to absorb him as Trackman/Gangman in preference to persons with lesser number of days of service than him and grant him all consequential benefits. 2. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of the parties directed the Railway Administration to invite the applicant for verification of his documents and to absorb him as a Group 'D' staff on regular basis, if he fulfilled the necessary criteria for absorption in service. It was further directed that the applicant shall also be entitled for notional fixation of his seniority and other incidental reliefs. 3. When this writ petition is taken up for consideration we WP(C) No.30859 of 2007 2 are informed that this Court had considered the identical issue in a batch of writ petitions, viz. WP(C) No.21777/2007 and connected cases, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated November 29, 2007 with the following direction: “In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of issuing the following modifications to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal: The age limit prescribed as per Circular Nos.E(NG)II- 99/CL/19 dated 28.2.2001 and E(NG)II-99/CL/19 dated 20.9.2001 will not be applicable to the casual labourers, who have completed 360 days' service. Quashing of the above said circulars is set aside. Even though the age limit is not applicable to absorption, other stipulations in the Rules like medical fitness, etc. can be insisted by the Railways”. 4. Since this Court has already upheld the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of similarly situated casual labourers who served in the Railway administration, we do not find any reason to deviate from the above view. Therefore this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there was inordinate delay on the part of the applicant in approaching the authorities. However, this issue was also considered by a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.22695/07. The WP(C) No.30859 of 2007 3 Division Bench held that delay cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate right of a former employee. On that point also this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We do so. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc