ORDER (Honble Mr. J.L. Negi, Member (A):-Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above titled OAs, the same are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The applicants have filed these OAs against the action of the , respondents in not conferring temporary status on them with effect from the j dates they had completed 206 days (observing 5 days week in their offices) in a calendar year and not granting them other consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were initially appointed as Chowkidar, Waterman-cum-Coal Boy. Peon and Sweeper on daily wages in the office of Respondent no. 4. Their dates of appointment are given below: 1. Sh. Jagdish Chand, Chowkidar 6.10.1993. 2. Sh. Mani Ram, Chowkidar 1.12.1993. 3. Sh. Ram Lok, Peon 1.7.1994. 4. Sh. Baljinder Kumar, Waterman 9.6.1995. 5. Smt. Prem Bassi, Sweeper 3.5.1995. 4. The claim of the applicants is that they are entitled for grant of temporary status and once granted temporary status, their services are liable to be regularised. They have relied upon a decision of Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in the cases in OA No, 1672/95 (decided on 1.7.1996) and O.A. No. 2041/96 (decided on 14.3.1997) vide which applications of the applicants therein were allowed and in compliance of the same, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Region, New Delhi had granted temporary status to the applicants in the aforesaid OAs. 5. Respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the OAs and filed their written reply stating that none of the applicants was in employment on the cut off date i.e. 1.9.1993 and grant of temporary status to the daily waged employees as per OM dated 10.9.1993-(Annexure A/1) was a one time measure and applicants who were employed after the cut off date cannot claim temporary status. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings. 7. IN OA No. 1146/HP/96 titled Bhuri Singh & Anr Vs. Union of India & others, two contentions were raised which are given under:- (i) That the Scheme is a one time measure as Clause 5 (i) speaks of . grant of temporary status to casual labourers. (ii) That the Scheme cannot be construed as a one time measure* the same will apply to casual labourers appointed even after 1st October, 1989." 8. grant of temporary status to casual labourers. (ii) That the Scheme cannot be construed as a one time measure* the same will apply to casual labourers appointed even after 1st October, 1989." 8. Since, divergent views have been expressed by different Benches of this Tribuna, one taking a view that the aforesaid Scheme is a one time measure, the other has taken a contrary view. Having regard to the divergence of the views expressed, the D.B. of this Tribunal had referred that matter to a Full Bench vide order dated May 16, 2000. The Full Bench vide order dated October 3, 2001 has held that the Scheme is not a one time measure but is a continuous one by observing as under:- ".... Mere extension of the Scheme by the respondents will not come in the way of construing the aforesaid scheme which was fallen for our consideration. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the department of Telecommunications, 1989" is not a one time scheme applicable to such Casual Labourers who were employed as on 1.10.1989 put the same is a continuous scheme which will be applicable also to casual labourers who are employed thereafter. Aforesaid question is answered accordingly. 13. As far as the second question that has been referred is concerned, in our view, a plain reading of the aforesaid clause appearing in para 5 (i) of the Scheme would show that the Scheme is applicable to all casual labourers who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year. Hence requirement of putting in one years service is mandatory before the Scheme can be made applicable. The clause further provides that apart from casual labourers being required to put in at least one years service he is further required to have put in 240 days of actual working (206 days of actual working in the case of offices observing five days week). Hence both the requirements need to fulfilled, namely having put in one years service and also having put in 240 days, of actual service (206 days actual service in the case of offices observing 5 days week). On these twa requirements being complete, such casual labourers are required to be designated as Temporary Mazdoors. Aforesaid question is accordingly answered in the aforesaid terms." 8. On these twa requirements being complete, such casual labourers are required to be designated as Temporary Mazdoors. Aforesaid question is accordingly answered in the aforesaid terms." 8. It is the conceded position that all the applicants had put in 206 days of actual working in their offices by observing five days week, in a calendar year and also considering the fact that the controversy involved as (mentioned above has been answered by the Full Bench in unambiguous terms that the Scheme is not one time Scheme applicable to casual labourers but is a continuous Scheme. It has been further held that for getting benefit of the Scheme as casual labourers, he is required to have put in at least one year service and he is further required to put in 240 days of actual working (206 days of actual working in the offices observing five days week. 9. In view of the decision of the Full Bench, these O.As are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for grant of temporary status within a period of two months from the date of receipt by them copy of this order. In case applicants are held entitled to the grant of temporary status, the respondents will grant the same to the applicants with all consequential benefits from the date of grant of temporary status. It is needless to mention here that their cases may be considered for regularisation as per their turn and as per the rules. No order as to costs.