ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The respondents in O.A.No.729/2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, have filed this Original Petition challenging Exhibit P3 order passed by the Tribunal allowing the O.A. and Exhibit P4 order dismissing R.A.No.17/2011 filed by the petitioners.
2. We heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants.
3. The applicants are seasonal Khalasis under the petitioners. In O.A.No.729/2009 filed by them, what they essentially sought was regularisation on the strength of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1552/1997. The Tribunal found that the case of the respondents stands on a par with the case of the applicants in O.A.No.1552/97 and on that basis directed regularisation as ordered in O.A.No.1552/97.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that O.A.No.1552/97 was disposed of by the Tribunal directing that the applicants therein will be considered for regularisation in the light of the scheme formulated by the petitioners themselves, which prescribes that employees should have a minimum of 120 days' service during the period 1996-97. It is stated that since the respondents herein did not satisfy this requirement, the Tribunal should not have followed the order in O.A.No.1552/1997 and granted relief to the applicants.
5. The correctness of this submission will have to be appreciated in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1552/1997, a copy of which is available on record. In paragraph 9 of the said order, the Tribunal held thus:
“9. In the light of the foregoing we direct the respondents to:
(i) Finalise the seniority list of the seasonal Khalasis on the basis of their actual aggregate length of service in successive years after notifying the same first provisionally inviting objections if any from the concerned employees and then notifying the final seniority list after considering and finalising the objections filed if any from the concerned employee.
(ii) Consider the applicants for appointment against the workcharged posts of Khalasis on regular basis based on their seniority without reference to the “scheme” in R-1(A) modified by R-1(8).
(iii) Grant necessary relaxations in favour of the applicants from the provisions of the requirement rules as required for (ii) above.
(iv) Till regularisation, applicants be continued to be enaged as seasonal Khalasis.”
Reading of the above directions contained in the order show that the Tribunal directed the respondents in O.A.No.1552/1997 to finalise the seniority list as ordered in paragraph 9(i). In paragraph 9(ii), the Tribunal has directed consideration of the applicants therein for appointment on the basis of seniority and without reference to the scheme, which is now relied on. In other words, in O.A.No.1552/1997, the Tribunal has directed consideration of the applicants therein for regularisation not on the basis of the scheme or 120 days' work, but on the basis of seniority finalised as directed by the Tribunal itself. Therefore, the petitioners are not correct in contending that since the respondents herein did not satisfy the requirements of the scheme, the Tribunal ought not have granted them relief on the basis of the order in O.A.No.1552/97. Since the aforesaid contention is untenable, we do not find any merit in this Original Petition.
The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE