1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6767 OF 2003 Ashok Shripati Kank. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India & others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.S.V.Mane, for Petitioner. Mr.J.C.Satpute with Vinod Joshi, for Respondent nos. 1 and 2. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 3rd March,2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative 2 Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Before the tribunal, the petitioner had filed an application for the enforcement of the policy decision of the Government of considering half of the service rendered by a casual employee who has been subsequently absorbed in regular service while considering the pension in case of the petitioner. The tribunal has declined to grant that relief because, according to the tribunal, the petitioner has failed to prove that on the date of his absorption in regular service i.e. on 30.6.1981, he was in service as casual worker. According to the tribunal, the petitioner has proved by producing a certificate that he was in service till 18.2.1980, and so far as the period from 19.2.1980 to 30.6.1981 is concerned, there is neither documentary nor oral evidence on record to show that he continued as a casual worker after 18.2.1980. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the fact that the petitioner was absorbed on 29.6.1981 is enough to show that on that date he was in service on casual basis. The learned Counsel himself candidly stated that there is no statement made anywhere in the 3 proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal that it was the policy of the Government to absorb in regular service only those persons who are working on casual basis on the date of absorption. Had such a statement been made before the Central Administrative Tribunal then it was for the respondents to respond to that statement either to accept or to deny it. Thus, there is neither any oral evidence on record nor there is any documentary evidence on record to show that the petitioner was continued in service as casual employee after 18.2.1980. There is no material on record to show that there is a policy of the Government to absorb only those persons who are working on casual basis on the date of absorption with the Central Government. It is possible that there may be the policy of the Government to absorb those persons who are actually working as casual workers on the date when the order of their absorption made and also those persons who may not be actually working as casual employees on the date of absorption but have worked as such in the past. In the original application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner in 4 paragraph (4.1) had made statement that he was working on casual basis till the order of regularisation was made. This allegation has been denied in the reply filed by the respondents. Therefore, the burden was on the petitioner to produce documentary evidence and if the documentary evidence is not available then seek permission of the tribunal to allow him to lead oral evidence to prove that on the date on which his services are absorbed he was working on casual basis. 2. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we do not find any fault with the finding recorded by the tribunal that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner continued to work on casual basis after 18.2.1980. In this view of the matter therefore, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be interfered with. The petition is devoid of any substance. Hence, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 5 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) ---