Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) IN the earlier order of rejection it has been held by the Tribunal in favour of the Respondent -applicant, that: I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. It is an admitted fact that the applicant's father was granted temporary status in his capacity as casual labourers with effect from 17.5.1990. Thereafter, the Respondents treated him "at par with temporary Group D services" with effect from 17.5.1993 along with many other similarly placed persons. However, unfortunately, the Respondents have twisted the facts and stated in para 6 of their reply that "Shri Rameshwar Bouri treated at par with Temporary status Group D staff with effect from 17.5.1993." In my considered view, the Respondents have purposefully used the words "Temporary Status Group D Staff" in their reply to describe the status of late Shri Rameshwar Bouri only to deny all the legitimate retirement dues which are admissible to a "temporary Group D Staff" to the applicant and other family members. First of all there is no status existing in the Respondent -department known as "Temporary Status Group D Staff (service)". The temporary status is given only to the casual labourers and not to the Group 'D' staff. The Group D staff belong to the regular establishment of the Department. They are either "temporary" or "permanent". It is also significant that the Respondents have referred the matter to the Circle Office, Ranchi for clarification regarding encashment of unutilised leave of late Shri Rameshwar Bouri describing him as a "temporary status employee" as seen from para 7 of the reply. Naturally, their clarification was on the expected lines that there was no provision for leave encashment for temporary status employees. Once the Respondents have treated late Shri Rameshwar Bauri as "Temporary Group D" with effect from 15.5.1993, he is entitled for all the benefits as are admissible to a Group 'D' employee. These findings have become final, and once these findings become final, it was not open to the Petitioner to take a different view and hold that these findings were not correct findings. The only way to disestablish these findings was to challenge them, which they have not done, and the Tribunal, in view of the aforesaid, has not agreed with the Petitioner. In our considered opinion, the views were rightfully observed by the Tribunal and in that view of the matter, the petition is not entertained, and hence, this petition is dismissed.;