IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11700 of 2005 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Department of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, `A’ Wing, Shastri Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 2. The Secretary, Department of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, `A’ Wing, New Delhi 3. The Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Govt. of India, Nizam Palace, 2, MSC Building, 3rd Floor, 234/4 AJC Colony Road, Kolkata 4. The Registrar of Companies, Bihar &Jharkhand, Department of Company Affairs, Govt. of India, 4th Floor, Block `A’ Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna -1 ….Petitioners Versus 1. PRADEEP KUMAR , son of late Pancham Ram, resident of Old Staff Quarters, PMCH, PS Pirbahore, Patna 2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna ….Respondents ----------- 05- 24.6.2010 Heard Mr.B K Pandey for the petitioners, and Mr. Gautam Bose for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.3.2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No.196 of 2004 (Pradeep Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed, and the authorities have been directed to give him the benefit of `temporary status’ within the meaning of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regulations)Scheme 1993, issued on 1.9.1993. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The respondent herein was engaged by the authorities as a purely temporary and ad-hoc Safaiwala on a consolidated salary of Rs.150/- per month, by order dated 7.1.1986 (Annexure 10). The petitioner worked as such continuously 2 and without any break from 17.11.86 to 28.8.93. It further appears that the authorities perhaps changed the mode and manner of the payment to the respondent from 24.8.93, though he continued to discharge the same duties and functions till the date of the order of the Tribunal. In the meantime, the Central Government promulgated the aforesaid Scheme on 1.9.93, conferring the benefit of temporary status to the person covered by the Scheme. Clause -4 of the Scheme is reproduced hereinbelow:- “4. Temporary Status i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this O.M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week). ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Group`D’ posts. iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circle on the basis of availability of work. iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for group `D’ posts.” 3. It thus appears to us on a perusal of the materials before us, as has been found by the learned Tribunal, that the respondent did work continuously so as to qualify for the benefit of `temporary status’ within the meaning of clause-4 of the Scheme. We, therefore, do not find fault with the order of the learned Tribunal. 3 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Birendra Prasad Verma ) mrl