M. Chandrasekharan vs Union of India

Antony Dominic, J.—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.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.

We may, at the outset, notice that on an earlier occasion claiming regularisation of his service, the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 931 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. That O.A. was dismissed and the order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in O.P. No. 30096 of 2002. By Annexure-A5 judgment dated 02.09.2008, the said Original Petition was also dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated before us that a SLP filed by him against Annexure-A5 was not entertained by the Supreme Court.

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 and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , 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.

The learned counsel further contended that at least he should be ordered to be paid pension for the long service rendered by him. In support of this contention, counsel placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Daisy [2012 (3) KLT 366]. First of all, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner was rendered in the context of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, which has no application to case of the petitioner. Even apart from that, claim for pension was not an issue that was agitated by the petitioner either before his employer or before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we will not be justified in taking cognizance of this plea now raised before us. Therefore, we decline to entertain this contention, but leave it open to the petitioner to claim pension before the competent authority, if he is entitled to do so.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed.