{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2336/2003 UMED SINGH & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Date of Judgment : 09.11.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. Vijay Mehta, for the petitioners. Mr. Lokesh Mathur for Mr.V.K. Mathur, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is a writ petition filed by the applicants of O.A. 354/96 and O.A. 254/97 under article 227 of constitution of India against an order dt 17.8.2001 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal ( for short hereinafter called Tribunal) in the aforementioned two connected original applications. 2. By impugned order, the tribunal dismissed the two original applications filed by the writ petitioners. 3. So the question that arise for consideration in this writ petition is whether tribunal was justified in dismissing the original applications filed by the writ petitioners? { 2 } 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dispose of this writ petition by issuing following directions. 5. Indeed, the following directions are being given in the light of the concession given by the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner to which counsel appearing for the respondent has no serious objection. We on our part also feel that looking to the nature of dispute and the claim of the writ petitioners for which the original application was filed, the directions given by this court would not cause any prejudice to the parties to this writ petition. 6. The basic question that arise for considerations in this writ petition is whether writ petitioners are entitled to claim any benefit of a scheme framed by the Central Government in the year 1993 called Casual Labour (grant of temporary status and regulation) Scheme 1993 ( hereinafter referred to as SCHEME)which came into force with effect from 1.9.93 and if so on what basis.? 7. Since the tribunal did not record any finding much less categorical finding as to whether writ petitioners are eligible to get the benefit of this scheme and whether they have rendered the service for the requisite number of days, the issue need to be examined in the first instance by the respondent. Since the counsel appearing for the respondent has also assured that the issue as to whether writ petitioners are eligible to get the benefit of scheme and if so how and on what basis would be examined by the respondent, we are not { 3 } inclined to examine the merits and demerits of the issue arising in the case and accordingly dispose of this writ petitions by giving following directions. (1) the respondent No 2 i.e. Base commander 5 FBSU Uttarlai Barmer would examine the cases of each writ petitioner as to whether, each or any of them (five in number) is entitled to claim any benefit of the Scheme and if so how and on what basis ? (2) In case if it is found on verification of their service records that they or any of them is eligible to get the benefit of the scheme then in such event, he will be accordingly so granted the benefit as may be permissible to him under the scheme as per law. (3) It is made clear that writ petitioners are not granted any benefit by this order except the one for consideration of their cases . In other words, they would be entitled to get any benefit only prospective in nature and that too after consideration of their cases and would not be entitled to claim any benefit of the past period which they spent in litigating their cases. (4) Let the cases of writ petitioners be considered within six months by the respondent no 2 as directed and decision be accordingly communicated to the writ { 4 } petitioners. With these directions, the writ petitions stands disposed off. No cost. ( C.M. TOTLA),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/