IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19.07.2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.16733 of 2009, W.P.No.16889 of 2009 W.P.No.11492 of 2006 and W.P.No.18969 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 in WP.No.16733 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 in WP.No.16889 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.13091 & 13092 of 2006 in W.P.No.11492 of 2006 W.P.No.16733 of 2009: Union of India represented by: 1.The Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2.The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy - 620 001. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise No.4, Royal Road, Custom Division, Trichy. .. Petitioners V. 1.Smt.S.Rita Mary 2.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.406 of 2006 dated 16.07.2008 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.16889 of 2009: Union of India represented by: 1.The Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2.The Chairman Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 3.The Joint Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi. 4.The Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, No.33, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. 5.The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy - 620 001. 6.Commissioner of Customs, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy - 620 001. .. Petitioners V. 1.P.Krunkatchi 2.K.Sathya 3.A.Sebastin 4.V.Lakshmi 5.G.Lakhminarashiman 6.K.Gowathaman 7.P.K.Kamaraju 8.V.Vijayakumar 9.Puhalendran 10.R.Ramesh 11.A.Ramamurthy 12.T.Sivakumar 13.G.Govindasamy 14.A.Ramesh 15.S.Ravi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16.B.Ramasami 17.M.Elango 18.A.Ezhilarasan 19.K.Muthulakshmi 20.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.824 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008 and quash the same. W.P.No.11492 of 2006: 1.M.Manikandan 2.K.Ramamoorthy 3.M.Sadaieswaran 4.P.Pandi 5.S.Sivakumar 6.P.Kannan 7.V.Balakrishnan 8.A.Mohammed Rabic 9.M.Kaliappan 10.R.Ramesh 11.M.Marieewari 12.M.Arumugham 13.M.Mariappan 14.A.Vijaya Lakshmi 15.R.Chandra 16.S.Muthupandi 17.N.Saravanan 18.A.Abdul Gafoor 19.I.Mahaboob Jaffer Khan 20.C.Ramachandran 21.R.Muthuvel 22.P.Sekar .. Petitioners V. 1.Union of India Rep. by the Joint Secretary (Admn) Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs North Block, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India New Delhi – 1. 3.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 4.The Commissioner of Central Excise, VP Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai. 5.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34. 6.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai I Division, Madurai - 625 002. 7.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai II Division, Madurai - 2. 8.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Virdu Nagar Division, Virdu Nagar. 9.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras - 1. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of 1st respondent in Proc. F.No.A12034/1/2005 AD III B dated 2.5.2005 and that of the 9th respondent in O.A.No.48 of 2006 dated 24.02.2006 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent No.4 to regularise the service of the petitioners. W.P.No.18969 of 2006: 1.T.Jaffar 2.R.Chandra 3.N.Jayakumar 4.S.Shanthi 5.A.Narasingam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.S.Priya 7.I.Narasingaperumal 8.N.Chandrasekaran 9.K.Selvi .. Petitioners V. 1.Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government, Finance Ministry, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2.The Chairman Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. 3.The Joint Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi. 4.The Chief Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) 33, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 023. 5.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai - 625 002. 6.Chief Accounts Officer, O/o. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai. 7.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai - 600 104. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of 3rd respondent in Proc. F.No.A12034/1/2005 AD III B dated 2.5.2005 and that of the 7th respondent in M.A.No.173 of 2006 in O.A.No.428 of 2006 dated 05.06.2006 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent No.4 to confer temporary Status to the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Udayakumar (in WP.No.16733/2006 & WP.No.16889/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari (in WP.No.11492/2006) For Petitioners : M/s.G.Bala & Daisy (in WP.No.18969/2006) For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravindran Addl. Solicitor General of India for Mr.P.Mahaadevan (in W.P.No.11492/2006) COMMON ORDER M.VENUGOPAL,J. W.P.No.16733 of 2009: The Writ Petitioners/Respondents have preferred the present Writ Petition as against the order dated 16.07.2008 in O.A.No.406 of 2006 passed by the 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. W.P.No.16889 of 2009: The Writ Petitioners/Respondents have projected the present Writ Petition as against the order dated 16.07.2008 in O.A.No.824 of 2007 passed by the 20th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal (20th Respondent in W.P.No.16889 of 2009), while passing the orders in O.A.No.406 of 2006 and O.A.No.824 of 2007, has, among other things, observed that 'O.A.No.764/2005, O.A.No.784/2005, O.A.No.785/2005, O.A.No.811/2005 and O.A.No.482/2006 filed by the respective applicants seeking regularisation were dismissed and further opined that since the applicants in O.A.No.482/2006 filed W.P.No.18969 of 2006 before this Court and if the applicants in the Writ Petition were to succeed, then, the present applicants in O.A.No.406 of 2006 and O.A.No.824 of 2007 also would be entitled for the consequential benefits and disposed of the said two Original Applications with an opinion that whatever order passed in W.P.No.18969 of 2006 shall follow in these two OAs and that the interim relief granted in the aforesaid Writ Petition is also applicable to the applicants also.' W.P.No.11492 of 2006: The Writ Petitioners/Applicants have filed the present Writ Petition as against the order dated 24.02.2006 in O.A.No.48 of 2006 passed by the 9th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The 9th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, while passing orders in O.A.No.48 of 2006, has, inter alia, observed that 'In 2005 (2) ALSLJ - 396 Suriya Begum Vs. Union of India and others, the Guwahati Bench held that the termination of casual labourers with stigmatic order violate principles of natural justice. The said case related to termination of service of a part time Safaiwala and according to the Tribunal, the stigmatic termination order will come in the way of applicant in seeking any further appointment. The said order is liable to be set aside and the representation for regularisation of service was directed to be disposed of. In Raju alias Manoj P./Selat Vs.Union of India and others, a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench held that the applicant shall be given temporary status as per the scheme and regularisation as per his turn. The case of the applicant is that he had satisfied the conditions for regularisation of the scheme for the year 1993. According to the Tribunal, the applicant fulfilled two conditions laid down in para 4.1 of the said scheme and hence directed the respondents to confer the temporary status. These judgments in our view in no way support the case of the applicants' and resultantly, held that 'no case has been made out to grant the reliefs to the applicants and accordingly, dismissed the Original Application.' W.P.No.18969 of 2006: The Writ Petitioners/Applicants have filed the present Writ Petition in calling for the records from the file of the 3rd Respondent in Proceedings No.F.No.A-12034/1/2005 AD III B dated 2.5.2005 and that of the 7th Respondent in M.A.No.173 of 2006 in O.A.No.428 of 2006 dated 05.06.2006 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, irregular, Unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. Further, the Petitioners have sought for issuance of a direction to the 4th Respondent in granting temporary status to them. The 7th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal has passed orders in M.A.No.173 of 2006 in O.A.No.428 of 2006 on 05.06.2006 allowing the Application filed by the nine persons (Writ Petitioners) for joining together to pursue the reliefs they have prayed for in O.A.No.428 of 2006. But dismissed the O.A.No.428 of 2006 at the stage of admission relying on the ratio settled on the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Dr.Rai Shivendra Bahadur vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College ((1962) Supp. 2. SCR 144) wherein it is held that 'the issue of writ of mandamus was of dependent on the aggrieved party pointing out the legal duty of an authority to grant the relief and his legal right under the Statute or rule etc.' https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Factual Matrix in W.P.No.16733 of 2009:- 2.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 1st Respondent/Applicant was appointed as a casual labourer, by means of an order dated 03.12.1984, issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Division, Nagapattinam and posted to Customs Preventive Party, Thanjavur on monthly wages and that she worked continuously in Petitioners' Department from 03.12.1984 onwards, without any break. 3.It is the plea of the Writ Petitioners that the Government of India, by means of an Official Memorandum dated 10.09.93, formulated a scheme for the grant of temporary status to casual labourers working in Government Departments and that the 3rd Petitioner/3rd Respondent issued orders dated 03.02.1994 and granted temporary status to her from the date of official memorandum dated 10.09.1993. Also, along with the 1st Respondent/Applicant, 15 others were also given the temporary status. The 1st Respondent/ Applicant specified the condition prescribed in the order dated 07.06.1988 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training and that the order granting temporary status to her on 03.02.1994 is still in force. Further, she represented periodically for her regularisation of service. On 03.01.2005, the 2nd Petitioner/Commissioner of Central Excise issued a notice to the 1st Respondent/Applicant stating that grant of temporary status is not in order and directed her to furnish her explanation. She submitted her representation praying to regularise her service in the Department. In similar circumstances, some of the casual labourers filed O.A.No.23 of 1999 and O.A.No.129 of 1999 before the 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai for regularisation of their services. As per the orders of the 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, 13 casual labourers were regularised. The 1st Respondent/Applicant filed O.A.No.1470 of 2000 along with others seeking regularisation and by an order dated 13.12.2000, the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal passed an order directing the Respondents therein to pass an appropriate order on the regularisation of the services. But the Respondents therein, instead of passing orders on merits, filed W.P.No.14326 of 2001 and obtained an order of interim stay and the said Writ Petition was withdrawn by the Respondents on 03.11.2004. The 2nd Petitioner/Commissioner of Central Excise, with a view to comply with the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1470 of 2007, issued notice dated 03.01.2005 and stated that the 1st Respondent was not eligible to obtain the temporary status; that she was not recruited through District Employment Exchange and that the part time employees were not entitled to temporary status. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The stand of the Petitioners, in their common reply statement before the 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, is to the effect that the 1st Respondent/Applicant was engaged as a casual labourer to do part time work on 01.12.1984 and that she was not engaged against any regular sanctioned post and engaged only to do part time work. Moreover, she was also not engaged through Employment Exchange and no assurance was ever given to her for regularisation. Added further, there was no provision as per the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government from time to time to regularise or even to confer temporary status as the 1st Respondent/Applicant as a part time casual labourer and not the full time casual labourer. As a matter of fact, only the full time casual labourers, who worked for 240 or 206 days (in 5 days week) as on 10.09.1993, as per Department of Personnel and Training Official Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, were granted temporary status. The temporary status initially given to the 1st Respondent/Applicant was subsequently withdrawn on receipt of instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 20.01.1994 wherein it was clarified that the provisions of the Department of Personnel and Training Official Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 are not applicable to the part time casual labourers. 5.It is the case of the Petitioners that when 10.09.1993 scheme came into force, the 1st Respondent/Applicant was working on part time basis and subsequent to Board's clarification dated 20.01.1994, part time casual labourers were not eligible for the conferment of temporary status. The Board's letter dated 09.03.1995 paves way for granting temporary status to casual labourers who were recruited prior to 07.06.1988 and continued till 08.04.1991 but could not be regularised by them. These instructions could not be applied to the case of 1st Respondent/Applicant because she was engaged on part time basis during the relevant period. There was no scope or provision in any of the instructions for the part time casual labourer to become eligible either for regularisation or for conferment of temporary status and in the meanwhile, the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued instructions dated 07.01.98 and it was instructed that in the case of Passport Officer, Trivandram V. Venugopal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the decision not to grant temporary status for casual labourers on the ground that they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The 1st Respondent/ Applicant was not granted the temporary status in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. 6.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that in the decision of Hob'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another V. Mohanpal [(2002) 4 SCC 573], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scheme of 01.09.1993 is not an ongoing scheme and the scheme is only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in clause-4 of the scheme. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As such, the 1st Respondent/Applicant had no legal right to claim temporary status. 7.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges before this Court that there is vast difference between Full time casual labourer and part time casual labourer and since the 1st Respondent/Applicant is a part time casual labourer, she is not entitled to get the temporary status. 8.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 13 full time casual labourers, who were engaged after 10.09.1993 in the 2nd Petitioner's Commissionerate, were granted temporary status in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in Civil Appeal No.2224 of 2000 was not available at the material point of time. As such, the temporary status casual workers survive because of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. The order confirming temporary status to those 13 casual labourers neither is a precedent nor binding on the Petitioners. 9.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners strenuously contends that the temporary status scheme was introduced as early as in the year 1989 in the Postal Department but the said scheme was introduced in Central Board of Excise and Customs only during September 1993. Indeed, clause 3 of the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme 10.09.1993 introduced by the Department of Personnel and Training makes it clear that this Scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries of Government of India and their attached and subordinate office, on the date of issue of these orders. It shall not apply to casual workers in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and Department of Posts who have their own schemes already. Therefore, the instructions mentioned by the 1st Respondent/Applicant in O.A.No.406 of 2006 cannot be applied in her case. The Department is bound by the instructions in F.No.A-12304/52/93/- Ad.IIIB dated 20.01.1994 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 10.Another submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the 1st Respondent/Applicant was working from 03.11.1984 and she was only doing part time work. Therefore, the Department, in view of the instructions dated 20.01.1994, had rejected the claim of the 1st Respondent/Applicant and also 5 other casual labourers' requests. Non recruitment through Employment Exchange is another reason offered by the 2nd Petitioner in his order dated 26.02.2005 for rejecting the request of the 1st Respondent/Applicant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhyamik Shiksha Parisad U.P. V. Anil Kumar Mishra and others [(2005) 5 SCC 122] wherein it is held that 'regularisation or absorption of a person cannot be made when there is no sanctioned post in existence and the completion of 240 days of work does not import the right for regularisation.' The Central Board of Excise and Customs, as per letter F.No.12034/1/2005 Ad. III B dated 2/5/2005 reiterated that engagement of persons on daily wages stands banned and the essential work for which no regular posts have been created/sanctioned may be out sourced through service providers/contractors. The Department could not allow the 1st Respondent/Applicant to work as part time casual labourer on daily wages continuously in violation of the policy of the Government, in the absence of any fresh policy being formulated. 12.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka V. Umadevi and others in Civil Appeal Nos.3595-3612 of 1999 (with C.A.Nos.1861-2063/2001, 3489/2001, 3520-3254/2002 and 1968 of 2006) (2006 SCCL.Com 243), wherein in paragraph 43 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described an 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the Constitutional and Statutory mandates." 13.Furthermore, in the aforesaid decision, at paragraph 44, it is held that 'it would not be just or proper to pass an order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ India permitting those persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice according to law and though it would be open to this Court to mould the relief, this Court would not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an illegality.' 14.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners invites the attention of this Court to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision Secretary, State of Karnataka V. Umadevi and others (cited supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held categorically as under: "Adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disable from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the Scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee." 15.The 1st Respondent/Applicant in O.A.No.406 of 2006 has averred that she was appointed as casual labourer, by an order dated 03.12.1984 issued by the 3rd Petitioner/Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Division, Nagapattinam and posted to Customs Division of Thanjavur on monthly wages. She was continuously working in the Petitioners' Department with effect from 03.12.1984 without any break. Further, she has stated that the Government of India by the Official Memorandum No.51016/2/90-Estt(C), dated 10.09.93 formulated a scheme for the grant of temporary status to casual labours working in Government Departments. The said Official Memorandum envisages the grant of temporary status to the casual employees who were personally employed and had rendered one year of continuous service in Central Government office, other than the Department of Tele Communications, Postal and Railways may be regulated by the scheme. Accordingly, the 3rd Petitioner/3rd Respondent issued orders in C.No.II/39/22/93-Estt, dated 02.02.1994 granting temporary status to the 1st Respondent/Applicant from the date of Official Memorandum viz., 01.09.1993. Along with the 1st Respondent/Applicant, 15 others were also given the temporary status. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16.Condition No.2 of the aforesaid orders dated 03.02.1994 states that 'Conferment of temporary status on the casual labours would not involve any change in duties and responsibility. Moreover, the engagement would be on daily wages of pay on need basis. They may be deployed anywhere within recruitment unit on the basis of availability of work.' 17.The case of the 1st Respondent/Applicant is that she has fulfilled the conditions prescribed in Order No.49014/2/86 dated 07.06.1988 issued by the Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances, Government of India, New Delhi and the clarificatory instructions issued thereon by a letter No.49014/4/90-Estt(C), dated 08.04.1991 and the order granting temporary status to the applicant on 03.02.1994 is still in force. 18.The 1st Respondent/Applicant had periodically represented to the Petitioners for regularisation of her services. The 3rd Petitioner/3rd Respondent took up her grievances for regularisation by engaging her on daily wages on part time basis from 24.05.2005 onwards. On 03.01.2005 the 2nd Petitioner/Commissioner of Central Excise issued a notice to the 1st Respondent/Applicant stating that her grant of temporary status itself was not in order and required the applicant to submit her explanation. She made frequent representations for regularisation of services in the Department as was done to other employees, who were similarly placed with temporary status. 19.The 2nd Petitioner/2nd Respondent, in the notice dated 03.01.2005, had stated that the 1st Respondent/Applicant was not eligible for the grant of temporary status because of two reasons: (i) The 1st Respondent/Applicant was not recruited through the District Employment Exchange; (ii)The part time employees were not entitled to temporary status. The 1st Petitioner/1st Respondent as early as on 24.09.1999 clarified that casual labourers who were recruited prior to 07.06.1988 and were in service as on 08.04.1991 are entitled to regularisation even though not employed through Employment Exchange and the temporary status could be given if such workers were not regularised for want of vacancies etc. Therefore, the plea of the 2nd Petitioner/2nd Respondent in his letter dated 03.01.2005 that the 1st Respondent/Applicant was not recruited through Employment Exchange was not a valid one. 20.The Petitioners/Respondents treated the 1st Respondent/ Applicant and granted the temporary status as early as on 03.02.1994 when she sought for regularisation of her services. Inasmuch as the 1st Respondent/Applicant has already been granted temporary status as early as on 03.02.1994, with effect from 01.09.1993, there is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ need to grant temporary status to her again. The said temporary status was not withdrawn till date. The 2nd Petitioner/2nd Respondent has wrongly relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Passport Officer V. Venugopal