Anoop V. Mohta, J. - (1.) RULE , returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.
(2.) THE Petitioners (Original Respondent Nos. 1 to 4) have challenged order dated 4 September 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai (CAT). CAT has directed the Petitioners to extend the benefits of the scheme envisaged in the Office Memorandum of 1993 (OM) to the Respondent (Original Applicant) and further directed to treat him working as a casual labourer as on September 1, 1993 and grant temporary status as per clause 4 of the OM read with all the consequential benefits within three months from the date of the receipt of copy of the order. The case of the Applicant is as under: - In 1976, the Applicant was engaged as Casual Labourer in the Arnala Customs Office under Respondent no.4. The Applicant has been continuously working since then for the last 35 years. On 30 July 1984, an order was passed by Respondent No. 3 continuing the temporary appointment of the Applicant and the designation of the Applicant is shown as Sweeper. On 26 September 1997, a representation was made by the Applicant for grant of temporary status and which was addressed to Respondent No. 3. The representation was also forwarded by Respondent No. 4. On 4 March 1999, the representation of the Applicant for grant of temporary status was forwarded by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3. On 6 August 1999, further letter sent by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3 recommending the case of the Applicant. On 17 November 2008, further representation made by the Applicant to regularize his service forwarded by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3. No action taken on the said representation. In January 2009, further representation was made by the Applicant for grant of temporary status and regularization. No reply received from the Respondents. On 22 July 2011 Original Application was filed in the CAT. The parties have filed reply and rejoinder and sur -rejoinder also.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has read and referred the OM dated 7 June 1988 and other documents in support of the contention to say that the impugned judgment is contrary to the OM and the Petitioners' service policy. There is no serious dispute and denial to the fact of Applicant (Respondent) being in service in the capacity so referred above since 1976. There is at least no contra material placed on record to the averments made. There is no serious dispute also to the fact that the Respondent has been continuously working for past 35 years. The request of Respondent to grant temporary status on the recommendation of Respondent No. 4 (Original Respondent No. 4) to Respondent No. 3 in the year 1990 is also not in dispute. There was no proper response received to the representations made, the Applicant filed the Original Application in the year 2011 and thus the Judgment. Therefore, considering the scope and jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the judgment is based upon the true and proper interpretation of the OM based upon the facts so referred needs no disturbance. There is no perversity. The view so expressed based upon the material on record cannot be stated to be contrary to law and/or beyond the jurisdiction. The reasons mentioned in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, in our view, needs no interference.;