IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 22810 of 2004(S) --------------------------------------- OA.249/2002 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS (NOW, MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS), SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNEMNT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS (NOW, MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS), SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SR), DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS (NOW MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFARIS), SHASTRI BHAVAN, BLOCK I, V FLOOR 26, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 006. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.S.G. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. P.P.BRIDGET D/O. JOHN CHARLES, AGED 47 YEARS, ESTATE CLERK, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT NADUVILAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARSHAKA ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN-23. 2. K.NANDAKUMAR, S/O. LATE M.PADMANABHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, EATATE CLERK, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE, KANATTUKARA, TRICHUR-11. W.P.(C). NO.22810/2004: 3. V.KUPPA LATHA W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, ESTATE CLERK, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT ST.HOUSE (SELASTEEN HOUSE), SENOY FLOWER MILL, THYKOODAM, VYTILLA, COCHIN-19. 4. K.S.SASIDHARAN, S/O. LATE N.V.KOCHURAMAN MENON, AGED 47 YEARS, ESTATE CLERK, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT V/969, GOGULAM, GOPALAKRISHNA AVENUE, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-2. 5. C.P.BEENAKUMARI, W/O. N.K.DEVARAJ, AGED 46 YEARS, ESTATE CLERK, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT NEKARTHIL HOUSE, MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. K.K.KAMALAM W/O. G.N.RAJAN, AGED 43 YEARS, ESTATE CLERK, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT KUTTIKATTU HOUSE, EROOR WEST P.O., TRIPPUNITHURA. 7. V.G.ROSY, W/O. V.J.JOHN, AGED 37 YEARS, ESTATE CLERK, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT VEENAPLACKAL HOUSE, KATTICHARA ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. P.P.GEORGE, S/O. LATE OUSEPH PAPPU, AGED 39 YEARS, ESTATE CLERK, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT POTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, KUMBALAM P.O., COCHIN-682 506. 9. JOSSY CYRIAC, S/O. LATE CYRIAC, AGED 39 YEARS, ESTATE CLERK, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT 2/101 B, CHACKIYALIL HOUSE, MOOLEPADAM ROAD, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM 682 030. 10. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.), SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA, SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SRI.K.V.JOY, SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 16471/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22810/2004-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ERNAKULAM BENCH). EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 27/08/1999 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5677/1994 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS 9NOW, MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS) WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME OF 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ERNAKULAM BENCH). EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ERNAKULAM BENCH). EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANNEXURES BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, (ERNAKULAM BENCH). EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ERNAKULAM BENCH). EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE 1978 SCHEME ADOPTED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ABSORPTION OF THE COMPANY PAID STAFF. EXT.P.9: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/03/2004 IN O.A. NO. 249/2002 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ERNAKULAM BENCH). EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE RANK LIST FOR ABSORPTION OF COMPANY PAID STAFF DT. NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/03/2001 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 211/2001 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CULCUTTA. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/09/2001 IN C.C. NO. 180/2001 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 05/05/2003 IN CW. NO. 2728/2001 AND CM 4774/2001 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 19/09/2005 IN LPA NO. 808/2003 AND LPA NO. 809/2003 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18/11/2005 IN R.A. NO. 2126/2004 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. //TRUE COPY// prv. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C) Nos. 22810/2004 & 16471/2007 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. Heard the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the respondents. Respondents in both the petitions were initially appointed as estate clerks in the office of the official liquidator at Ernakulam. While the respondent in W.P.(C) No.16471/2007 was appointed in 1975, the respondents in the other case, W.P.(C) No.22810/2004, were appointed between 1980-85. Since there are no rules for appointment, respondents were appointed based on a procedure approved under Rules 308 and 309 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959. Since, service of the respondents were not regularised, they approached this Court by filing original petition which led to Ext.P1 judgment (O.P.No.9732/1990) of the Division Bench produced in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004. This Court directed absorption of respondents in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004 with effect from the date on which they were taken on temporary appointment. When appeal was filed by the petitioners herein, the Supreme Court vide Ext.P2 judgment produced in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004, though dismissed W.P.(C) Nos. 22810/2004 & 16471/2007 -: 2 :- the appeal gave six months' time to frame scheme for regularisation of the employees. The operative portion of the Supreme Court judgment says that if the petitioners herein fail to frame the scheme within the six months granted by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the High Court will stand confirmed. Admittedly, the petitioners did not frame any scheme for regularisation of the temporary employees and, consequently, Ext.P1 judgment (Annexure A1-O.P.No.9732/1990) produced in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004 has become final. In fact, the respondents could have moved this Court for initiating the contempt when judgment was not implemented. However, in view of the delay in filing the contempt application they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the same relief which is granted through the impugned order (Ext.P9). We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal challenged in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004 because it is only an endorsement of what the High Court has granted to the respondents. We therefore, dismiss W.P.(C) No.22810/2004. 2. So far as W.P.(C) No.16471/2007 is concerned, the respondent is in the same position as the respondents in the W.P.(C) Nos. 22810/2004 & 16471/2007 -: 3 :- other case except for the fact that she is not a party to the writ proceedings before this Court. We do not think the respondent in this case could be denied the benefit merely because she was not a party to the writ proceedings. We therefore, hold that the respondent is entitled to the same benefits as the respondents in W.P.(C) No.22810/2004. However, since the respondent herein has retired there is no scope for regularising her service with effect from the date of first appointment for payment of arrears of salary. However, it will be unjust to deny pensionary benefits for the period of service ever since she joined the temporary employment. All what the Tribunal has done by the impugned order is to direct the petitioners to reckon her service from 1975 onwards till regularisation for the purpose of pension. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We therefore, dismiss W.P.(C) No.16471/2007 also. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms