- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY order dated 24.7.2006 passed in OA No. 109 of 2006, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner with reference to his claim for regularization as TSM on the ground that the committee constituted for the purpose of verification of the number of work days the petitioner had worked found that he had worked for 105 days only during the period in question. Challenging the said order, this petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is strenuously contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even according to the earlier counter filed by the respondents, the petitioner worked upto 8th September, 1993 and on the other hand, calculation has been made upto 31.1.1992 and this is wrong. So. in the circumstances, we sought for clarification from the respondents to verify whether the petitioner actually worked for 240 days in view of the certificate issued on 3.1.2001 in respect of the petitioner.
(3.) NOW , counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner worked for 105 days. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner persists that the earlier stand taken by the respondent before the Tribunal was that he worked upto 8th September, 1993 and therefore the period between 31.1.1992 and 8.9.1993 has also to be calculated which has not been done.;