HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 23747 of 2005 Between: The Chief Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad Zone, Hyderabad and three others ..... PETITIONERS AND P. Posani W/o Rajaiah aged about 50 years and eight others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice GODA RAGHURAM ) Petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No. 335 of 2005 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short the “Tribunal”). The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 5.8.2005. Respondents are the applicants before the Tribunal. They sought a declaration that the action of the writ petitioners in not granting them temporary status is arbitrary and illegal and a direction to grant them temporary status and regularize their services pursuant to the Office Memorandum Lr.No. 51016/2/90-Estt ( c ) dated 10.09.1993, with effect from the date they completed 240 days of continuous service. The Tribunal rightly analyzed the scheme of regularization set out in Office Memorandum dated 10.9.1993, whereby temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers in employment on the date of issuance of the Office Memorandum 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 case of office observing 5 days week). It would appear that in the O.A the respondents filed a copy of a letter letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nizamabad Division dated 13.1.1999, wherein applicants 1 and 3 viz., the respondents 1 and 3 herein were certified to have been in continuous full time casual employment since 1976 and June 1986 respectively. The petitioners, however placed before the Tribunal a report of the Divisional Assistant Commissioner dated 16.6.2000, which stated that the respondents (applicants) were engaged on full time basis with effect from June 1995, except the third respondent herein, who was engaged on full time basis with effect from August 1987. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioners before the Tribunal that in view of the particulars of employment of the respondents (applicants), they are not entitled to the benefits under the Office Memorandum, dated 10.9.1993. The Tribunal found that the writ petitioners did not question the correctness of the letter dated 13.1.1999 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nizamabad Division, which was relied on by the applicants. Consequently, the Tribunal held that only applicants 1 and 3 viz., respondents 1 and 3 were entitled for the benefits of the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993. The Tribunal also observed that the writ petitioners failed to properly verify the documents pertaining to the other applicants and this is apparent from the Assistant Commissioner’s letter dated 13.1.1999 and directed the writ petitioners to verify the documents in the presence of other applicants (other than applicants 1 and 3) to consider their entitlement to the benefits of the scheme set out in the Office Memorandum dated 10.9.1993. The Tribunal fixed time for completion of the exercise. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioners reiterates the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners before the Tribunal as respondents, which had not found favour therein and for reasons alike this Court concurs. There are no merits. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM , J _____________________ NAUSHAD ALI , J DATE: 31.03.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.