IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4212 of 2005 MANOJ KUMAR VERMA & ORS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 06/ 3-Sep-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for B.S.N.L. From the averments made and submissions advanced it appears that dispute between the petitioners is pending since March,1997 when by virtue of Annexure-1 petitioners who were working as casual labourers in the then Department of Telecommunications which has now been formed into Nigam, their engagement was discontinued. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the light of the policy decision of the Department then in existence since 1989 the petitioners should have been granted temporary status as per Circular dated 7.11.1989 and subsequent policy decision. The petitioners, it appears approached the Central Administrative Tribunals, Patna Bench, Patna through various petitions which were disposed of by Annexure-3 series and their representations were remitted back to the concerned authorities to consider and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law after due verification of the facts of the case. Such orders passed by authorities in compliance of order of CAT have been annexed as Annexure-4 series and are under 2 challenge. The orders contained in Annexure-4 series shows that the authorities have gone into the necessary records to find out the work period of each of the petitioners and on that basis they have considered the provisions of the schemes of 1989 as amended in 1990 as well as the Circular of 1993 and 1999. After applying the facts of the provisions in the Circulars governing grant of temporary status to casual labourers, the authorities have found the claims of the petitioners unacceptable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that facts have not been correctly appreciated by the authorities otherwise the gradation list of Chapra in the year 1997 would have been amended and petitioners would have been included in the gradation list. The issue is not of finding a place in the gradation list but whether the petitioners had the required eligibility to be given temporary status in the light of relevant Circulars and policy decisions. It is not possible for this Court to enter into the controversial facts. The orders show that payment records of concerned division have been considered to find out the actual work period of individual petitioners. On that basis, the principles have been applied and petitioners have been found not eligible to be given temporary status. 3 It is not possible for this Court to interfere with the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 series either on the ground of error of fact or on the ground of error in law. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that if petitioners have proof of facts available with them and on that basis if they can establish that they are entitled to temporary status as per policy decisions of the relevant period then they may file representation before an authority higher than the authority which has passed Annexure-4 Series. In that case, such representations should be considered on their own merit expeditiously and preferably within six months. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)