High Court Kerala High Court

S. Shahanas vs Union Of India on 12 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
S. Shahanas vs Union Of India on 12 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31055 of 2006(S)


1. S. SHAHANAS, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

3. THE SUB RECORD OFFICER,

4. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,

5. DEEPA SASIDHARAN, D/O.SASIDHARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.SHAFIK

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :12/06/2007

 O R D E R
            K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.

        ===============================

                      W.P(c) NO. 31055 OF 2006

                 ======================

               Dated this the 12th day of June, 2007


                              J U D G M E N T

Radhakrishnan, J.

This writ petition has been preferred against the order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 769/2003. Counsel

appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that OA 769/2003 was

disposed of along with OA 738/2003 and connected cases.

Against the order in OA 738/2003, WP(C) 2473/2007 was filed

before this court, which was disposed of by another Division

Bench setting aside the order of the Tribunal and directed to

consider whether the petitioners therein had worked for 240 days

in the year of 2002, if that be so, the court held that automatically

they would get the benefit of the two letters dated 6.6.1988 and

31.3.1992.

2. We have perused the order under challenge. It is clear

from the materials made available before the Tribunal that

petitioner had not worked for 240 days in any of the years.

Petitioner submitted that the finding made by the Tribunal is

WP(C) No.31055/2006

: 2 :

incorrect. Petitioner, if so advised, may move the Tribunal and

establish the fact that he had worked for 240 days about which

we express no opinion. Petitioner if so advised may produce a

copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.2473/2007 before the Tribunal

and Tribunal will consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

3. If there is delay in filing the application for review, the

same also may be considered by the Tribunal taking into

consideration all aspects including the pendency of the writ

petition here as well as taking note of the direction in WP(C)

No.2473/2007.

Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp