C K JOSHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P1 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 14-01-2002 is subjected to challenge by the applicant, who is the petitioner herein. Nevertheless, it has not been possible for us to give a finality to the issue. We think, further examination of the claims has to be made with reference to the grievances of the petitioner vis- -vis his counter parts, who had opportunity to get benefits because of the orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal in certain other cases. The facts could be stated as herein below.

(2.) In short, the applicant was claiming identical benefit that was conferred by Ext.P3 in favour of two employees (Sunil and Sivaraman) of an antedate of regularization. Persons, who got engaged as casual labourers before the attainment of 18 years of age, could not have claimed such period for the purpose of regularization. But a position had come to be accepted against this general principle in view of the order passed in O.A.No. 1098/1992 by the Tribunal. Because of the directions passed in the above O.A, the applicants there got the benefit of such service and consequential seniority. Pointing out that this relief should have been conferred on them as well, Sri. Sunil and Sri. Sivaraman, referred to earlier, had filed O.A.No. 1155 of 1998 and by Ext.P4 judgment, the Tribunal had required the Department to look into their claims in the light of the order in O.A.No. 1098/1992.

(3.) Ext.P3 came to be passed in the aforesaid circumstances conferring such benefits on them. The resultant position was that Sri.K.N.Sunil by virtue of this added service, became senior to the petitioner. The petitioner had his date of birth as 14-10-1965 and he had entered service on 19-07-1982; he was to attain 18 years of age on 14-10-1983. But, he was regularized in service only on 08-07-1994, because of the restriction of non-inclusion of service before attainment of majority. If Sri. Sunil had been permitted to remain as such he would have been a junior to him. But, the march that had been secured by Sri.Sunil because of the order dated 14-07-1999, according to the petitioner, gave him a rightful cause of action.