High Court Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs T.K.Padmini on 27 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs T.K.Padmini on 27 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17863 of 2007(S)



1. UNION OF INDIA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. T.K.PADMINI
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SR.PANEL

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.A.SHAFIK

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :27/09/2010

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                       K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
               ------------------------------------------------------------
                      W.P(C) NOS: 17863/2007 &
                               15544 OF 2009
               -----------------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 27th September, 2010.

                                   JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Connected writ petitions are filed by the department

challenging orders of the CAT directing regularisation of casual

employees as Group D staff based on the vacancies available in

every Commissionerate. The regularisation scheme refers to

“appointment of casual employees in the respective offices where

they are engaged.” The Tribunal took the respective offices as

Commissionerate against which writ petition is filed by the

Department stating that respective offices mean several

Commissionerate falling within one State.

2. We have heard senior standing counsel appearing for the

petitioners and separate counsel appearing for contesting

respondents.

3. We do not find any basis for the contention of the

department that State as a whole is contemplated in the scheme for

regularisation of appointment of casual employees. Respective

offices only mean the offices which engage the casual employees.

WPC 17863/07 & 1554/2009 2

In fact very many are employed in range offices and other small

offices which are constituted by the Commissioner for

administrative purposes. In fact these casual employees could

probably be shifted only from one range to another range within

the same Commissionerate. So much so, we find that the order of

the Tribunal is logical and easily implementable. We therefore

uphold the orders of the Tribunal and dismiss the writ petitions.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj

WPC 17863/07 & 1554/2009 3