S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners claimed benefit of home salary and other admissible dues for the period they worked in Kuwait for the respondent No. 1 between 1992 and 1995. ( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as daily rated casual workers of the first respondent. As per the policies of the Central Government which were applied by the respondent they were granted temporary status which entitled them to wages as daily rated workers with reference to the minimum scales of pay applicable to regular Group-D officials as well as DA, HRA and CCA. ( 3 ) THE respondent is a company under the control of the Central government. It required personnel to execute certain projects in Kuwait, and sought for volunteers. Apparently, its regular staff as well as daily wage employees were selected and deployed for working in the project. At the time of deployment, which was termed as deputation, the respondent issued an order (in this case on 4. 4. 1992 and 10. 4. 1992 ). ( 4 ) IT is the common case of parties that the petitioners had joined the respondent in March 1992 and were asked to report for duties subsequently on 4. 4. 1992 and 10. 4. 1992 respectively, at the site in Kuwait. The relevant clauses and provisions contained in the order are identical. They are reproduced below: ?subject : Deputation of staff to Kuwait in connection with execution of tcil s project there. The following staff is required to proceed to Kuwait in connection with execution of TCIL s project there on 04-04-1992. The provisional rate of foreign daily allowance payable to them in Kuwait is as below: