1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No.2902 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.6449 of 2005 Uttam Shankar Vyavhare .. .. Applicant (Orig. Respondent) v/s. Union of India & anr. .. .. Respondents (Orig. Petitioners) Mr.D.V.Gangal for applicant. Mr.T.J. Pandian for respondents. ---- CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 18 th January 2008 P.C. : 1. The applicant, who is the original respondent in the above writ petition, has filed Civil Application No.2902 of 2007 for fixing early date of hearing of the instant writ petition. The respondents, who are the original petitioners, have filed the above writ petition challenging the order dated 24 th December 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”), Bombay Bench, Mumbai 2 (for convenience we shall refer to the respondents as the petitioners). 2. The applicant had filed Original Application No.14 of 2004 in the Tribunal. He had asked for regularization on the ground that his Casual Labour Card shows total service of 674 days. The Tribunal disposed of the applicant's original application along with other original applications. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal disposed of the original application of the applicant by passing following order:- “ O.A.No.14/2004 is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.1 for nominating the authority competent to consider and decide the issue of absorption of applicant on a group D Post and such authority should pass a detailed and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The writ petition is restricted to this part of the order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that by the impugned order the Tribunal has given only a direction to respondent No.1- Union of India for nominating the authority competent to consider and decide the issue of 3 absorption of the applicant on a group D post. The Tribunal has further directed the authority to pass a detailed and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the order of the Tribunal. He further submitted that, therefore, this court should dispose of the writ petition by confirming directions of the Tribunal. 4. We have also heard Mr.Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioners. Both learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 50 of the order of the Tribunal where contentions of the applicant and the petitioners have been discussed by the Tribunal. Mr.Pandian contended that the petitioners take serious exception to the reasoning of the Tribunal contained in paragraph 50 and, therefore, the present writ petition is filed. He also submitted that, therefore, if only the direction given to the 1 st respondent- Union of India to nominate the authority competent to consider and decide the issue of absorption of the applicant on group- D post is confirmed then the petitioners would have no objection to such an order. However, since the petition is admitted and is not 4 decided on merits, this court's order should not be interpreted to mean that this court has confirmed what is stated in paragraph 50. 5. We find substance in his submission. Whether what the Tribunal has said in paragraph 50 is correct or not cannot be decided until this petition is fully heard. We can only consider the applicant's request that the authority must be asked to consider the applicant's case and pass a detailed order in accordance with law and rules. Mr.Pandian appearing for the petitioners has no objection to such an order being passed. 6. In the circumstances, we pass the following order:- The operative part of the impugned order giving direction to respondent No.1- Union of India for nominating the authority competent to consider and decide the issue of absorption of the applicant on a group- D post and a further direction to that authority to pass a detailed and speaking order is confirmed. However, we make it clear that we have not confirmed the reasoning of the 5 Tribunal, more particularly given in paragraph 50 of the Tribunal's order. This court has not adjudicated upon any of the issues involved in the petition. The authority, so nominated, will consider the applicant's case independently and in accordance with law and rules and pass a detailed and speaking order and communicate it to the applicant. The authority, so nominated, shall conduct the entire exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law and rules. We reiterate that all contentions of both the parties are kept open. 7. Both, the writ petition and the civil application are disposed of in the aforestated terms. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)