WP(C) 3694/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY (Madan B. Lokur, CJ) We have heard Mr. BD Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the Ce ntral Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.61 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.7940/2005. The case of the petitioner is that during the calendar year 1995 he had worked for 250 days with the respondents and, therefore, he is entitled to the b enefit of temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme announced by the respondent on 7.11.1989. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner may have worked for 2 50 days in 1994 but thereafter, he was irregular and in 1995 he had worked for 8 4 days and in 1996 for 35 days. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the petitioner ar e not known. This is stated in the affidavit filed by the respondents in respons e to the averments made by the petitioner before the Tribunal. It is submitted that in view thereof the petitioner is not entitled to t he benefit of the above scheme. We find from a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal that the case of the petitioner has not been specifically dealt with and this is precisely th e grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Since there is no finding given by the Tribunal in this regard, we have no option but to remit back the matter to the matter for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner on the basis of the pleadings before the Tribunal and the submissions made by learned counsel. Under the circumstances, in so far the petitioner is concerned, the orde r dated 22.1.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal f or reconsideration on merits and to answer the question whether the petitioner i s entitled to the benefit of the above scheme. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.