1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1187 OF 2001 Union of India & anr. ..Petitioners V/s. H.J.Koli & ors ..Respondents Mr.S.M.Shah a/w.Ms.S.V.Bharucha i/b.Mr.T.C.Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.M.S.Karnik, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM : P. B. MAJMUDAR R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. . The petitioner No1 i.e. the Union of India has challenged the Order dated 8th October, 2000, passed in the Original Application No.1116 of 2008, by the Learned Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. The Order has been passed in the Original Application filed by the respondents herein. The respondents herein filed the said Original Application for grant of 2 temporary status to them on completion of 206 days of work and to regularise them in Group D post with consequential benefits to declare their termination of service as illegal and bad in law. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 were appointed as casual labours between 17th February, 1994 and 1st December, 1995. They were on temporary basis till their services were terminated on 30th December, 1998. It is the case of the respondents that on completion of 206 days of service in a Calender Year they were entitled to the grant temporary status. The respondents were claiming benefit of the Office Memorandum 10th September, 1993, issued by the DOP & T Government of India. By the said Office Memorandum, the casual labourers were to be granted temporary status and were to be regularised in terms of the said Office Memorandum. The Tribunal allowed the said Original Application and directed the petitioners to consider the respondents for continuance of service and grant of temporary status. 3 2. The benefit of the said Office Memorandum was sought to be denied to the respondents on the ground that they were employed without following the proper procedure and the guidelines issued by the DOP & T from time to time. The identical issue had come up before this Court in Writ Petition NO. 4499 of 2001. The said Writ Petition was filed by the petitioners herein i.e. the Union of India against a similar Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai directing the continuance and regularisation of the respondents concerned in the said Writ Petition. This Court on consideration of the Scheme, as contained in the original Office Memorandum dated 10th September, 1993 came to a conclusion that the benefit of the said Office Memorandum could not be denied to the respondents therein merely on the ground that they were not employed through the Employment Exchange or the proper procedure was not followed at the time of appointing them. This 4 Court observed that though, the Union of India had framed a Scheme for the benefit of the casual labourers and it cannot be lost sight of the fact that casual labourers had worked for 240 days and had been engaged for the work to be discharged by the Union of India. This Court, therefore, dismissed the said Writ Petition. The factual basis in the said Writ Petition and the present Writ Petition is identical. The respondents were also similarly situated as the respondents in the instant Writ Petition. Apart from the fact that the Order dated 24th September, 2001, was an Order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. We are also in respectful agreement with the view taken by the said Division Bench in the said Order dated 24th September, 2001. The above Writ Petition is, therefore, required to be dismissed. The respondents are directed to comply with the impugned order within a period of three months from date. 5 3. Mr.M.S.Karnik though, had appeared for the Union of India in the said Writ Petition has drawn our attention to the said Order of the Division Bench dated 24th September, 2001. Mr.S.M.Shah, the learned panel counsel appearing for the petitioners herein does not dispute the factual position which has been observed hereinabove. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the above Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed, Rule discharged with no order as to costs. ( R.M.SAVANT. J.) ( P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.)