IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2102 of 2000 Between: 1 The Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise , L.B. Stadium Raod, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 2 The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Subashnagar, Nizamabad 3 Secretary Ministry of Finance Govt of India Union of India New Delhi ..... PETITIONER(S) AND V.Gangadhar son of V. Gangram Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Subhashnagar , Nizamabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or direction, order or Writ, more particulalry one in the nature of Certiorari calling for records in OA.No. 581/1999 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash the order dt. 27/10/1999 in the said OA.and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MS.G.SUDHA The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.2102 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 27-10-1999 passed in O.A.No.581 of 1999 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. 2. The petitioners herein are the oﬃcial respondents in the above O.A. while the respondent is the applicant. The respondent ﬁled the O.A. seeking direction to the petitioners to grant him ‘temporary status’ in terms of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 (for short ‘the Scheme’). The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, allowed O.A., thereby granting temporary status on the respondent with eﬀect from the date of ﬁling of O.A. or from the day prior to the conferment of temporary status on the similarly situated juniors to the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the oﬃcial respondents preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard learned standing counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 4. Learned standing counsel for petitioners contended that though the respondent was working as casual labourer, he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the Government of India issued clariﬁcation vide O.M. dated 12-7-1994 5. It is seen from the record that the respondent claims that he had been working as casual labourer for more than one year by the date of introduction of the Scheme, which came into eﬀect from 01-09-1993 and as such, he has to be granted ‘temporary status’. He further stated that he had completed 206 days of service by 01-9-1993 as full-time casual workers and his case was recommended for grant of temporary status and regularisation vide letter dated 13-1-1999. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondent was working as part-time casual labourer and he was taken on full-time basis with eﬀect from June, 1995, which is long after the Scheme was implemented, and that the beneﬁt of Scheme was meant and conferred on casual mazdoors, who were on rolls as on 01-9-1993 as one-time measure. 6. It appears from the communication dated 13-1- 1999 of the Assistant Commissioner addressed to the Deputy Commissioner (P&V), Central Excise, Hyderabad-I Commissionerate, Hyderabad, that the respondent had been working since 01-10-1992 at Peddapally Range as full-time casual labourer on consolidated wages and completed 206 days of service up to 01-9-1993. This is the ﬁeld report submitted by the responsible oﬃcial and the same is not disputed. The petitioners have placed reliance on the clarification issued vide O.M. dated 12-7-1994 that it is mandatory to engage casual employees through employment exchange and appointment of casual employees without employment exchange is irregular and hence, such casual employees cannot be bestowed with temporary status. The respondent was working as full-time casual labourer even before issuance of the said clarification, which does not have statutory effect. 7. Apart from the above, though the respondent seems to have been engaged during the ban period on casual basis, there was no requisition sent to the employment exchange asking it to sponsor the candidates. When there was no such requisition and even by the date of introduction of the Scheme, the respondent was working and had put in required service, the petitioners obviously have to confer ‘temporary status’ on the respondent. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 29-07-2008 bsc