IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 1064 of 2011(S) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033. 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELECOM, BSNL, ATTINGAL. 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL (PERS-IV), BSNL CORPORATE OFFICE, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE,SC,BSNL(BHARAT SANCHA RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. R.INDIRA DEVI, HARISREE NIVAS, KANNAMKARAKONAM, ATTINGAL P.O., PIN-695101, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P (CAT).No. 1064 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 Judgment Basheer, J: Deceased husband of respondent No.1 in this Original Petition was engaged by the Telecom authorities as a casual labourer with effect from March 1, 1993 till July 1996. A dispute had arisen as to whether he would be entitled to get temporary status as casual labourer. 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No. 1723/98 declared that the deceased husband of respondent No.1 would be entitled to get temporary status as per Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme with effect from April 1, 1994, the date on which he completed one year on casual service. The Tribunal further directed the Telecom Department to grant all consequential benefits to the deceased employee with effect from April 1, 1994. The said order passed by the Tribunal was confirmed by the Division Bench in its judgment in O.P.No.3315/2002. Thus the issue relating to the status of the deceased employee as a casual labourer was concluded in the previous round of litigation between the parties. 3. But it appears that the Department which had by now become a Company (BSNL) with effect from October 1, 2000 refused to grant the service benefits to the deceased husband of respondent No.1 on the ground that the said employee had initially entered through back door and therefore going by the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. his appointment was not regular or valid at all. 4. It was further contended that respondent No.1 was not entitled to file the Original Application on behalf of her deceased husband at this belated stage especially since the deceased employee had never bothered to challenge the order passed by the petitioner-Company. 5. The Tribunal after considering the entire aspects of the matter repelled all the contentions raised by the petitioners and held that the claim made by respondent No.1 was liable to be favourably considered. Accordingly the petitioners were directed to take a decision in the matter within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The above order passed by the Tribunal is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. As has been noticed already, the primary question whether deceased Babu was entitled to conferment of temporary status as a casual labourer was settled way back in 2002 in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in WPC.No.3315/2002. It necessarily followed that the petitioners ought to have regularised the service of the deceased employee in terms of the clauses contained in Casual Labours (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation Scheme), 1989. Petitioners could not have refused to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal in OA.No. 1723/1998 which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Original Petition referred to above. 7. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record and having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Though this is a case in which exemplary costs should be awarded, we refrain from doing so since we have not admitted the Original Petition. The Original Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.