THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATY WRIT PETITION No :6670 of 2001 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Assailing the order dated 27.10.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 207 of 2000, the Department filed the present writ petition. The facts in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged as casual labourers in the construction unit of the petitioners. The respondents earlier approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 539 of 1999 seeking a direction to re-engage them as casual labourers in the Civil Engineering Department of Waltair basing on the post-81 live casual register of the Construction Division submitted by the C.A.O. on 11.9.1996. However, in the absence of any counter being filed by the department opposing the averments made by the respondents, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. on 18.6.1999 with the following directions. “i) If the Construction Organisation had recommended their names in the 1991 list for keeping them in Live Register as a post-81 engaged casual labourers and they are eligible for regularisation, then the applicants are to be considered for re- engagement as casual labourers against the 20 vacancies which were ordered to be kept vacant as per the interim order dated 8.4.1999; (ii) The policy decision for re-engagement of casual labourer as stipulated in the letter dated 1.6.1995 and also the Establishment Circular of Serial No. 187/86, will hold good; (iii) The applicants should be examined for their medical fitness and be properly checked for their identity; (iv) As regards their educational qualifications, they should be re-engaged if they possess the educational qualification required for a post 81 engaged casual labourer to be kept on Live Register.” Pursuant to the said order, the department on verification of the records having found that the respondents are not eligible for re-engagement, issued a notice dated 5.8.1999 calling for their explanation by bringing to their notice about the deficiencies noted by them in the records. The respondents submitted their explanations to the said notice and the authorities after considering the explanation offered by the respondents, through proceedings dated 30.9.1999 rejected their claim for re-engagement. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed O.A. No. 207 of 2000 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, through the impugned order dated 27.10.2000 while setting aside show cause notice dated 5.8.1999 and the order dated 20/3.9.1999 of the petitioners, however directed them to consider the cases of the respondents for re-engagement as casual labourers within four months by adhering to the directions given in the earlier O.A, namely, O.A. No.539 of 1999, dated 18.6.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the department filed the present writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the department has submitted that after 1.1.1981, no casual labourer can be engaged without the prior approval of the General Manager. He further submitted that since the respondents were retrenched as casual labourer prior to 1.1.1981, they are not entitled for regularisation. He also submitted that some of the applicants were under aged and the thumb impression of some of the applicants are not tallying with their earlier impressions. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondents were post-81 casual labourers. It is also seen from the record that their names have also been recommended by the respective construction units for placing them in the live register in the year 1991 itself. When that being so, the authorities cannot reject their claim for re-engagement. It is also seen from the record that as per letter dated 20.2.1987, the Chief Administrative Officer, Constructions, Waltair Division was delegated with all the powers as were delegated to the General Manager. Hence, the contention of the department that the applicants were engaged without the prior approval of the General Manager cannot be sustained. In so far as the contention that the applicants were under aged is concerned, when the department has considered the case of a candidate at Sl. No.1, who was born on 9.7.1970 for re- engagement, the department is not justified in rejecting the case of the applicants for re-engagement. In so far as the contention of the department that the finger prints of the applicants are not tallying is concerned, when P.W.1 himself has issued the service record, the same is not tenable. Therefore, the Tribunal, while taking into consideration the fact that the respondents were post-81 casual labourers and that their names have also been recommended by the respective construction units for placing them in the live register, by the impugned order, rightly directed for re-engagement of the respondents as casual labourers, if they fulfilled the eligibility criteria and if they are found medically fit. Hence, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 27th September, 2010 ____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY,J pnb