UNION OF INDIA Vs. C MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. V.P. Rajendran, learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel representing the petitioner in W.P. No. 39878 of 2005, Ms. Aparna Nandakumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner in W.P. No. 2412 of 2008 and Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and have perused the records.

(2.) THE contesting respondents, who were working as casual labours in the Railways between the year 1979 and 1984, moved the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'] with Original Application being O.A. No. 610 of 2004 to set aside the order of the Assistant Personnel Officer, Divisional Railways, Madurai, in so far as fixing the upper age limit and consequently, to direct the petitioners to consider the claim of the applicants for screening the contesting respondents borne in the Live Register with reference to their upper age limit.

(3.) HOWEVER, subsequently, another set of workmen moved the CAT with O.A. No. 708 of 2005 seeking to challenge the distinction made between the casual labour, who had done 120 days of work and those who are having less than 120 days of work. The argument of the contesting respondents in that writ petition was that if age relaxation can be given to persons, who had done less than 120 days of work, there was no reason why the same relaxation should not be given to persons, who are having more than 120 days of work. The CAT allowed the case of the second batch of respondents by an order dated 02.8.2007 and held that the age limit applicable to those who had done more than 120 days of casual service, is also applicable to persons, who are having less than 120 days. In that view, the CAT also relied upon the judgment of its Ernakulam Bench, which was upheld by the High Court of Kerala in W.P. (C) No. 30328 of 2004. It is against this order, the second writ petition being W.P. No. 2412 of 2008 was filed. When the matter came up for admission, we directed Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the respondents to take notice and also directed the earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 39878 of 2005 to be posted along with this case for hearing.