10. 04.04.2019 By way of this writ petition, the petitioners- Union of India and others, have challenged the order dated 07.03.2002 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.56 of 2000, whereby learned Tribunal has allowed the application rejecting the plea of respondents-Railways on limitation. Learned Tribunal in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said order dated 07.03.2002 observed as under:- “5. In this view of the matter, Respondents are directed to recompute the entire periods of casual engagement of the applicant, including the period of casual engagement rendered by him between 24.4.1966 and 23.10.1979 and to consequently ante date his Temporary Status as well as the Permanent Status and to give him necessary consequential benefits. 6. The Advocate for the Respondents has also raised a hyper technical question of limitation. But when injustice is glaring, such hyper technical objection, with regard to limitation, cannot stand in the way for dispensation of justice. Thus, this objection is overruled.” Mr.Avijit Pal, learned counsel for the Union of India-Railways placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. K.G.Radhakrishnan Panickar and others, etc. etc., reported in AIR 1998 SC 2073, wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed as under:- O.J.C. No. 5645 of 2002 2 “12. In its judgment dated 8-2-1991 the Tribunal has held that exclusion of period of service rendered as Project Casual Labour before they were regularly absorbed prior to 1-1-1981 results in such employees being discriminated against as compared to Project Casual Labour who were employed subsequently and whose service as Project Casual Labour prior to absorption is counted for the purpose of qualifying service. The said finding of the Tribunal is based on the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165] . In this regard, it may be stated that the Tribunal was in error in invoking the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165] in the present case. The decision in D.S. Nakara [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165] has been considered by this Court in subsequent decisions and it has been laid down that the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165] can have application only in those cases where there is discrimination in the matter of existing benefit between similar set of employees and the said principle has no application where a new benefit is being conferred with effect from a particular date. In such a case the conferment of the benefit with effect from a particular date cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the basis that such a benefit has been conferred on certain categories of employees on the basis of a particular date. (See: Krishena Kumar v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112 : (1990) 14 ATC 846] ; State of W.B. v. Ratan Behari Dey [(1993) 4 SCC 62 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1123 : (1993) 25 ATC 574] and State of Rajasthan v. Sevanivatra 3 Karamchari Hitkari Samiti [(1995) 2 SCC 117 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 415 : (1995) 29 ATC 199] .) In the present case, the benefit of counting of service prior to regular employment as qualifying service was not available to casual labour. The said benefit was granted to Open Line Casual Labour for the first time under order dated 14-10- 1980 since Open Line Casual Labour could be treated as temporary on completion of six months' period of continuous service which period was subsequently reduced to 120 days under para 2501(b)(i) of the Manual. As regards Project Casual Labour this benefit of being treated as temporary became available only with effect from 1-1- 1981 under the scheme which was accepted by this Court in Inder Pal Yadav [(1985) 2 SCC 648 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 526 : (1985) 3 SCR 837] . Before the acceptance of that scheme the benefit of temporary status was not available to Project Casual Labour. It was thus a new benefit which was conferred on Project Casual Labour under the scheme as approved by this Court in Inder Pal Yadav [(1985) 2 SCC 648 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 526 : (1985) 3 SCR 837] and on the basis of this new benefit Project Casual Labour became entitled to count half of the service rendered as Project Casual Labour on the basis of the order dated 14-10-1980 after being treated as temporary on the basis of the scheme as accepted in Inder Pal Yadav [(1985) 2 SCC 648 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 526 : (1985) 3 SCR 837] . We are, therefore, unable to uphold the judgment of the Tribunal dated 8-2-1991 when it holds that service rendered as Project Casual Labour by employees who were absorbed on regular permanent/temporary posts prior to 1-1-1981 should be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits and the said judgment as well as the judgment in 4 which the said judgment has been followed have to be set aside. The judgments in which the Tribunal has taken a contrary view have to be affirmed.” Taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the opposite party No.2 (now dead) has already been regularized on 01.04.1984. In that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition. Consequently, order of learned Tribunal dated 07.03.2002 passed in O.A. No.56 of 2000 is liable to be set aside, and we direct the same. Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application. ..………………….. K.S. JHAVERI (Chief Justice) ……..………………….. K.R. MOHAPATRA (Judge) ss