ORDER (Honble Mr. J.L. Negi, Member (A) - Applicant has filed the application being aggrieved by the rejection of her representation pursuant to the Order passed by a Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 866/HP/99 titles as Tara Mani Vs. Union of India & ors. She has sought quashing of order (Annexure A/2) passed by the respondents and also a direction to the respondents that the applicant be considered for regularization in the post of j Peon in Group D category. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a part-time Peon w.e.f. 7.2.1988 and continued to work as on today. She has put in more than 10 years service with the Respondents Department and a break of two days was given in the month of may, 1989 and also in the month of April, 1996. Applicant had sought for regularization and had filed OA no. 866/HP/99 which was decided by Bench of this Tribunal on 5.10.2000 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the applicant within a period of 4 months. 3. Respondents, in pursuance of the directions of this Tribunal in the aforesaid OA, considered the representation of the applicant and rejected her claim for regularization on the plea that applicant engaged as part time worker, performing duties only for four hours a day and not as a casual worker on daily wage basis and the instructions dated 21.3.79 were not applicable in the case of the applicant. Thus, her claim for regularisation as Peon was rejected. 4. Applicant pleads that as per Annexures A/3, A/4 and A/5 containing the instructions of the Respondent Department, applicant had put in requisite number of days work and as such she was entitled for regularization. The change of nomenclature from daily wages to part time was device employed to deprive the applicant of her right. 5. Respondents have opposed the OA and filed a written reply stating therein that casual labour on daily wage basis who has put in 240 days in offices observing 6 days week and 206 days in offices observing 5 days week were eligible to get regular appointment subject to fulfillment of other conditions laid down in the instruction dated 21.3.1979. 5. Respondents have opposed the OA and filed a written reply stating therein that casual labour on daily wage basis who has put in 240 days in offices observing 6 days week and 206 days in offices observing 5 days week were eligible to get regular appointment subject to fulfillment of other conditions laid down in the instruction dated 21.3.1979. It was further laid down in the instructions that before appointing a casual labour on regular basis, the persons available in the Surplus cell of Govt. of India should first be absorbed. Applicant has not put in 206 days of continuous service. She is , therefore, not eligible for regularization of her services in the Respondent Department. 6. However, it was conceded that in view of the directions of a Bench of this Tribunal, the applicant will be considered according to rules alongwith other candidates, if she applies, whenever recruitment to Group "D post is undertaken in the Respondent Department. 7. Applicant has filed a rejoinder. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings. 9. Applicant has not denied that she was engaged as a Part time daily worker and used to perform duty for 4 hours in a day. There is no such scheme or rules under which applicant can be granted regularization or any other benefit. However, we find that she had put in long service with the respondents i.e. about 12-13 years till date and this itself cannot be altogether ignored or overlooked as and when she is to be considered for appointment to Group D post. However, respondents have admitted that in view of directions of this Tribunal, the applicant shall be considered alongwith other candidates, if she applied whenever recruitment to Group D post is undertaken in the Respondent Department. She will be given weightage to the service already rendered by her and in case she is found to be overage, age relaxation in her case will also be considered keeping in view the number of years of service put in by her in the respondent Department. 10. In these circumstances, we dispose of the present OA with a direction to the respondents to consider her also alongwith other candidates whenever requirement to Group D post is undertaken by the Respondent Department. They shall consider her notwithstanding j whether her name has been sponsored by Employment Exchange or not. 10. In these circumstances, we dispose of the present OA with a direction to the respondents to consider her also alongwith other candidates whenever requirement to Group D post is undertaken by the Respondent Department. They shall consider her notwithstanding j whether her name has been sponsored by Employment Exchange or not. Respondents will also give weightage to the service already rendered by her and in case she is found to be overage, they will consider relaxation of age in her case by considering number of years of service put in by her. O.A. is disposed of accordingly.-