IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34948 of 2005(S)
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
3. THE STATION DIRECTOR,
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
Vs
1. P. RAMENDRA KUMAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG
For Respondent :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :05/08/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.34948 of 2005 S
------------------------------
Dated this, the 5th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The respondents in Original Application No.743 of 2000 on
the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are
the petitioners. The said Original Application was filed by the
respondent herein. The Tribunal, by Ext.P5 order dated 7.9.2005,
allowed the Original Application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order,
this writ petition is filed.
2. The respondent claimed that he is a Casual Production
Assistant working under the Station Director, All India Radio,
Thiruvananthapuram. Based on Annexure A1 judgment produced
along with Ext.P1 Original Application, the writ petitioners have framed
Annexure A2 Scheme for absorption of Casual Production Assistants
and General Assistants who have worked 72 days in a Calendar Year
before 31.12.1991. The respondent/applicant claimed the benefit of
the said Scheme and represented. The said representation was
considered and rejected by the Director General, All India Radio, by
Annexure A11 order dated 2.2.2000. Challenging that order, the
Original Application was filed. The writ petitioners resisted the
WPC No.34948 of 2005
– 2 –
application contending that the applicant was only doing the work of a
Compere and that too for Family Welfare Programmes only. He never
worked as Casual Production Assistant or General Assistant, it was
submitted. Even assuming that, the respondent has worked for some
days, he has not worked for 72 days as Casual Production Assistant.
The Tribunal examined the records and other materials produced and
held as follows:
“We have given due consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the documents and
material placed on record. From the compilation of
Quotation Contracts we could verify the correctness of
A/12 chart and see that the applicant was engaged for
72 days as Casual Production Assistant between the
period 20.1.987 and 31.12.1987.”
In view of the said finding of fact, relief was granted to the applicant.
We notice that the above finding is essentially a finding of fact, which
cannot be disturbed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. No material compelling us to take a different view, has been
brought to our notice, in this writ petition. But, the learned counsel for
the petitioners pointed out that the finding of the Tribunal that de hors
Annexure A2 Scheme, the respondent is entitled to get the benefit, is
WPC No.34948 of 2005
– 3 –
not sustainable. The finding on the said point is contained in paragraph
12 of the order of the Tribunal, Ext.P5. Since on the facts of this case,
it was found that the respondent/applicant is entitled to get the benefit
of Annexure A2 scheme, it was unnecessary to consider whether he
was entitled to get regularisation independent of Annexure A2.
Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on the said aspect in paragraph
12 is vacated.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
Sd/-
C.T. Ravikumar,
Judge.
DK.
(True copy)
