THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.1693 OF 2008 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.12.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.625 of 2007 in dismissing the application filed by the applicant for directing the respondents – postal department to regularize his services in the permanent post of Electrician from the date of initial appointment, the present writ petition is filed. 3. From the material on record, it could be seen that the case of the petitioner is that he possessed ITI (Electrician) and on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Munisheerabad, Hyderabad, was appointed to the post of contingent Electrician vide memo dated 11.9.1995 issued by the 3rd respondent – Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad for working for a period of six to seven hours per day and he was terminated from service on 19.8.1997 and again reappointed on 26.8.1997 and since then he was working as such, in the respondent – department. As his services were not being regularized, he filed O.A.No.911/1999 and the Tribunal by its order dated 21.6.1999 directed the respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner dated 25.1.1999 within a period of two months in accordance with law and gave liberty to approach the Tribunal again if he is aggrieved by the orders of the respondents. By proceedings dated 17.8.1999 the respondent no.3 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that he was appointed as contingent employee only with effect from 26.8.1997 and the protection given in the judgment of the Apex Court is applicable only to the full time casual labourers appointed before 29.11.1989 and after 29.11.1989 and continued till 10.9.1993. Thereafter, the writ petitioner made number of representations and the same were rejected with similar reasons. However, pursuant to his representation dated 30.9.2004, the respondent no.3 vide proceedings No.B3/Cont/Dlgs/04-05 dated 23.12.2004 informed the writ petitioner that his case would be considered at appropriate time. Thereafter also, he made representations, the same were not considered. The writ petitioner filed his latest representation on 16.7.2007 and as the same was not considered, the writ petitioner approached the Tribunal. 4. On the ground that the writ petitioner was appointed only as a contingent employee, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. 5. There is no dispute that that the petitioner was appointed as contingent electrician on being sponsored by the employment exchange on 11.9.1995 and after his services were terminated by the respondent by memo dated 19.8.1997, again he was reappointed by memo dated 26.8.1997 and since then he is continued in service and thereafter, he made number of representations for his regularization and the same were rejected and pursuant to his representation dated 30.9.2004, the respondent no.3 vide proceedings No.B3/Cont/Dlgs/04-05 dated 23.12.2004 informed the writ petitioner that his case would be considered at appropriate time. It is stated that the petitioner is presently working in the said post. In view of these circumstances, we pass the order as under: “The respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.7.2007 in accordance with law, if the petitioner is still continuing in service in the post of contingent electrician.” 6. With the above direction, the order of the Tribunal is accordingly modified and the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ----------------------------- ------ T.MEENA KUMARI,J ---------------------------- ------ G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:3.3.2008 AVS