IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8213 of 2007 SUCHIT KUMAR PANDEY, Son of Sri Ram Janam Pandey, resident of Village Pachpaika, PO Pauni Hasanpur, PS Vaishali, District Vaishali …Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Custom, New Delhi 2. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Custom, C R Building 4th Floor, B C Patel Path, Patna 3. Commissioner of Custom, CR Building 4th Floor, BC Patel Patha, Patna 4. Joint Commissioner (P&V), Customs, CR Building 4th Floor, BC Patel Patha, Patna 5. The Deputy Secretary, Government of India,Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi 6. Administrative Officer, Customs (HQ), CR Building 4th Floor, B C Patel Path, Patna 7. Public Relation Officer, Customs (HQ), CR Building 4th Floor, B C Patel Path, Patna 8. Superintendent (Estt. Admn.) Customs (HQ), CR Building 4th Floor, B C Patel Path, Patna …… Respondents ----------- 03- 9.2.2010 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure 1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in OA No.554 of 2005 (Suchit Kumar Pandey vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner for according temporary status and regularizing his service has been rejected. It appears that the applicant was engaged as a Despatch Clerk in February 2000 on daily wages. He worked during 2000- 2001, and 2001-2002 for more than 206 days in a calendar year. He, therefore, requested the respondent authorities to accord temporary status which was rejected leading to the original application which has been rejected. It appears to us that the petitioner claimed the temporary status and regularization under 2 the provisions of the scheme known as Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularization) Scheme, Government of India 1993, which was enforced on 10.9.1993. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the same was one time scheme for regularization of the services of the employees working as on 10.9.1993. On the other hand, the position of the present case is that the petitioner had for the first time worked in February 2000. It is thus evident that the petitioner is not covered by the 1993 Scheme. 2. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl