S RAMALINGAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. V. Ajayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondents 1 to 4 and have perused the records.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'] dated 30.9.2002 made in O.A. No. 509 of 2002 dismissing the case of the petitioner; the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner along with another person, by name V. Calavady, filed two Original Applications.

(3.) THE Tribunal, accepting the said contention, rejected the case of the petitioner and it held in paragraph 10 that the Board of Officers Running the Union Run canteen met on 30.01.2002 and decided that the petitioner along with the other applicant became surplus. But it was held that one Mr. Nagash, who was Ex-Havildar, who had put in only two months of service, was retained even though the applicant had put in 1-1/2 years service. This was on the basis that the canteen is a welfare measure for retired and serving employees. THErefore, the retired Army person can be preferred over a Civilian employee.