M.CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he entered the service of the respondent as a casual labourer in 1988. He continued as such and on attaining the age of superannuation, was discharged from service on 31.12.2013. He filed O.A. No.411 of 2014 before the Tribunal mainly for a declaration that he is entitled to have his service regularised retrospectively and for consequential benefits. By Ext.P2 order, the Tribunal dismissed the application. It is in these circumstances, this original petition is filed.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.

(3.) IN the above background, we are unable to entertain the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the directions of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], for the reason that Annexure -A5 judgment was rendered long after Umadevi's case was rendered by the Apex Court. Insofar as Annexures A8 & A9 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, those orders also will not support the case of the petitioner as his claims already stand negatived by Annexure -A5 judgment of this Court. In such circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal in Ext.P2 order dismissing O.A.No.411 of 2014 does not merit interference.