1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5413/2007 (Ranchhoddas Dagdudas Bairagi VERSUS Union of India & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. Hedaoo, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 4, 2007. Heard Mr. Hedaoo, the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.07.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the original application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the application. A perusal of the order shows that the petitioner has only worked for 3 Years 22 Days and in absence of any regularisation order, the Tribunal has concluded that the petitioner does not qualify for pensionary benefits. Consequently, it is difficult for us to accept 2 the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Government of India and Others Versus Court Liquidator's Employees Assn. and others, reported in (1999)8 Supreme Court Cases 560, particularly because the facts involved in the present case are different than the one involved in the case before the Apex Court. Consequently, petition suffers from lack of merits and the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE