IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (CAT).No. 778 of 2010(S)
1. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST
... Petitioner
2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST
3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
Vs
1. G.G.MOHANA SHENOY, S/O.LATE SHRI GOPALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
----------------------------------
OP (CAT) No.778 of 2010
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This OP(CAT) is filed challenging the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal in an Original Application directing
that the respondent be given preference in employment as Gramin
Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer at Elamakkara Post Office.
2. We have heard learned standing counsel appearing for
the Department and have gone through the order of the CAT.
3. What we find from the order of the CAT is that when the
post, which itself is an Extra Departmental post, arose in the year
2009, the respondent had already put in 7 years’ service as a Part
Time Sweeper in two Post Offices under the Department. The
respondent relied on a circular issued by the Government on
06/06/1988 giving preference to casual labourers, who have
worked for 240 days in an year, for appointment as ED employees.
The CAT after examining the claim of the respondent, found that
the conditions of the notification are generally satisfied except for
OP(CAT) No.778/2010
-2-
the fact that the respondent was not a full time employee, nor was
he sponsored by Employment Exchange. However, the CAT took
into account an earlier order issued in the case of a lady, who while
working as a Part Time Sweeper was accorded the benefit of the
above Government circular. The said decision of the CAT was
confirmed by the High Court. In this case, the only difference is that
the respondent was not sponsored by Employment Exchange.
However, the finding of the CAT is that he has a valid registration in
the Employment Exchange for the last several years. We do not
think there is any justification to interfere with the benefit granted
to the respondent by the CAT by taking into account the 8 years’
service of the respondent with the Department as a Casual
Employee, though on a part time basis. We, therefore, dismiss the
OP(CAT).
However, we make it clear that our judgment need not be
treated as a complete interpretation of the Government circular
referred to above for declaring eligibility.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE)
jg