IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------ OA.462/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, OTTPALAM DIVISION, OTTAPALAM-01. 2. POSTMASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, KOZHIKODE. 3. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, DEK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- K.K.CHACKO, S/O. THE LATE KUNJACHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, WORKING AS GROUP D, MANNARKAD MUKHYA DAK GHAR, PIN 678 582, RESIDING AT KOCHATTUKALAYIL HOUSE, MELE KANDIYOOR, JELLIPPARA P.O., VIA-AGALY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.N.Ramachandran Nair & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. ============================================ W.P.(C)No.18 of 2010 ============================================ Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The challenge is against the order of the C.A.T. directing the petitioners to reckon the ad-hoc service of the respondent for the purpose of considering his pension. The respondent has served the department as an extra-departmental agent for 24 years and thereafter he was appointed on ad-hoc basis for around two years and then regularized. According to the petitioners, the ad-hoc service cannot be counted for pensionary benefits and that since respondent has regular WPC18/10 -:2:- service only for around eight years, he is not entitled to pension. The C.A.T. found that when the ad-hoc appointment was made, there was regular vacancy and so much so, the service rendered by the respondent as an employee appointed on ad-hoc basis is to be counted for the purpose of pension. Even though the counsel for the petitioners challenges the findings of the Tribunal, because there is no provision in the rules to treat the ad-hoc service for the purpose of pension, we notice that this is a case where the respondent served the department as an extra-departmental agent for 24 years and thereafter he was made to work on ad-hoc basis for around two years and on regular service for around 8 years. We do not find any WPC18/10 -:3:- justification to interfere with the Tribunal's order declaring petitioners' liability to count ad-hoc service, which alone will entitle the respondent for pension. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the order of the C.A.T. need not be treated as a precedent for all cases and the petitioners are entitled to consider other cases on merits. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. sl.