Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition is directed against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") dt. 12.01.2007.
(2.) THE question which requires our consideration & attention in the present petition is that the petitioners who are casual labourers & indisputably had worked for at least 240 days in a year (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week) whether are entitled for grant of temporary status in terms of the Scheme introduced by the Department of Personnel and Training namely Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 effective from 1.9.1993 ("Scheme, 1993"). The salient facts which culled out from the record & relevant for our consideration are that the present petitioners who are nine in number indisputably were working as casual labourers when the Scheme, 1993 came into force on 01.09.1993 and had worked for at least 240 days in a year (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week), when not conferred with temporary status initially approached to the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 113/1999 & their grievance was that denial of temporary status as claimed by them while working as casual labourers is a clear inaction on the part of respondents & in violation of the Scheme & deserves interference and that came to be allowed with direction to the authority to consider their case for conferment of temporary status if they found fit computing the period of 240 days in a year vide order dt. 20.07.2000, operative part thereof being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced ad infra: - "(i) to consider the applicants for conferment of temporary status, if they found fit, computing the period of 240 days of service in a year pursuant to the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court, as referred above, and the instructions issue by the department as mentioned in Annexure A/9 (ii) The respondents are also directed to consider the applicants for regularisation, in case they found fit and subject to the availability of posts."
(3.) IN compliance thereof order came to be passed by the respondents dt. 25.08.2000 stating that in view of the directions of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur services of the petitioners/applicants are terminated and such action of the respondents was questioned by the petitioners/applicants by filing contempt petition for disobedience of order of the Tribunal dt. 20.07.2000 passed in Original Application No. 113/1999 and that apart they also preferred separate Original Application No. 399/2000 assailing order dt. 25.08.2000 & that came to be decided by Ld. Tribunal vide order dt. 23.11.2000 setting aside order impugned dt. 25.8.2000 being contrary to the directions of the Tribunal contained in the order dt. 20.07.2000 passed in OA -113/1999, operative part of the order dt. 23.11.2000 being relevant is reproduced ad infra: - "Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25th August, 2000 is hereby quashed. Meanwhile the respondents shall comply with the direction of this Tribunal issued in O.A. No. 113/99 vide order dated 20 -07 -2000 within a period of two months from today. The applicants are entitled to be continued till their case is considered as per the directions issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 20 -07 -2000. This order also dispose of the separate Contempt Petition filed by the applicants in CP No. 42/2000. No costs.";