Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners (Union of India and its Agencies) and Mr. Gautam Bose, counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1. 2. The writ petition is filed against the order dated 6.8.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A.No. 447 of 2002 filed at the instance of Respondent No. 1. By the impugned order respondent No. 1 who worked as casual typist in the All India Radio, Patna, before his removal from service on 1.10.2000 by a verbal order is directed to be re-engaged as casual typist and then to be accorded temporary status under the scheme framed by the Department of Personnel and Training on 10.9.1993 for regularisation of casual labour. According to the respondent, he was engaged to work as casual typist on 16.6.1992. Admittedly, the engagement was made without issuing any advertisement or following any known procedure for appointment of a Government employee. He does not possess even an appointment letter. However, according to his case, he worked from 16.6.1992 to 1.10.2000 when he was verbally asked not to come for work anymore. He made a representation before the departmental authorities to take him back in employment, but getting no reply he finally came to the Tribunal in the aforementioned O.A. Before the Tribunal he claimed the reliefs of regularisation in service and grant of temporary status mainly on the basis of the scheme of regularisation dated 1.9.1993. The department filed its written statement raising a number of objections and contending that the respondent was not covered by the regularisation scheme. 3. On hearing the parties, the Tribunal allowed the respondents application and passed the impugned order directing for his regularisation in service against an available vacant post and grant of temporary status. 4. Mr. Tripathi submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the case of the respondent was not covered by the Scheme of regularisation and erred in directing for his regularisation. He invited our attention to Paragraph-5 of the regularisation scheme dated 1.9.1993 that contains the applicability clause. 4. Mr. Tripathi submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the case of the respondent was not covered by the Scheme of regularisation and erred in directing for his regularisation. He invited our attention to Paragraph-5 of the regularisation scheme dated 1.9.1993 that contains the applicability clause. Paragraph-4 is as follows: Temporary Status i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this O.M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for period of at least 240 days (206 days in the offices observing 5 days week) ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Group D posts. (iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay on need basis. He may deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circle on the basis of availability of work. (iv) Such causal labourers who acquire temporary status will not, however, be brought on the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for group D posts. 5. Mr. Tripathi further submitted that the Scheme came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. V/s. Mohan Pal and Ors. reported in - and on consideration of Paragaraph-4 the Supreme Court held and found that the Scheme was a one time programme and regularisation under it was not an ongoing process. Paragraphs-4, 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court decision, relevant for the present, are re-produced below: 4. In these appeals, the question that arises for consideration is whether the conferment o "temporary" status is a one-time programme as per the Scheme or this is an ongoing scheme to be followed by the Department and whether the causal labourers are to be given "temporary" status as and when they complete 240 days of work in a year (206 days for the offices observing 5 days a week). Another question that came up for consideration is whether the services of casual labourers who had been given "temporary" status could be dispensed with as per Clause 7 as if they were regular casual labourers. 5. Another question that came up for consideration is whether the services of casual labourers who had been given "temporary" status could be dispensed with as per Clause 7 as if they were regular casual labourers. 5. The first question is to be decided on the basis of the interpretation of Clause 4 of the scheme. As already noticed, the Scheme came into effect from 1.9.1993. Clause 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows: temporary status-(1) temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this (sic) and who have rendered a continuous service of atleast one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of atleast 240 days (206 days in the case of officers observing 5 days week). 6. Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of "temporary" status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. Scheme of the Central Administrative Tribunals took the view that this is an ongoing scheme and as the when casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of officers observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get "temporary" status. We do not think that Clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing scheme. In order to acquire "temporary" status, the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered a continuous service of at lest one year which means that he should have been engaged for a period of atleast 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices observing 5 days a week. From Clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving "temporary" status to all the casual workers, as and when they complete one years continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate and scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given "temporary" status and later they are to be absorbed in Group D posts. 6. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate and scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given "temporary" status and later they are to be absorbed in Group D posts. 6. From perusal of Paragarph-4 of the Scheme and the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohan Pal (supra), it is evident that the employee seeking regularisation must have worked for 240 days (or 206 days in case of 5 days a week offices) during one calendar year prior to 1.9.1993, the effective/cut off date under the scheme. 7. One of the objections raised on behalf of the Departmental authorities was that the respondent had not worked for 206 days during any one calendar year prior to 1.9.1993 and for that reason alone he was not covered by the scheme of regularisation. This objection of the Departmental authorities is taken note of by the Tribunal in Paragraph-7 of its order. 8. It appears that in order to meet the objection, the respondent relied heavily on a latter dated 19.9.2001 written by the Station Director to the Director General recommending the respondents re-engagement and his regularisation in service (A copy of the letter is Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit). It is significant to note that this letter was written after the respondent was removed from service. In the letter it is stated that the respondent had worked as casual Typist Assistant in the Commercial Broadcasting Service from 16.6.1992 to 29.7.2000. It was further stated that for several years during this period the respondent had worked for more than 120 days. The Tribunal seems to have accepted this letter as evidence of the number of days worked by the respondent and referred to it repeatedly in its order. In Paragraph-13 of the order where the Tribunal rejected the objection of the departmental authorities regarding the application of the scheme to the respondents case, it was observed as follows: It is an admitted fact that in the year 1993 also the applicant has been working with the respondents and prior to that he has worked continuously with more than 120 days in a year which is clear from the letter issued by the Station Director himself vide Annexure-2, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that the applicant has been working as casual typist from 16th June, 1992 to 29th September, 2000. Therefore, it can not be said that the applicant has not completed the requisite number of 240 days. So far as the chart being placed by the respondents with regard to number of working days is concerned it shows the number of actual working days. So far as the remaining working days are concerned, they are to be treated as working days with fictional breaks as the applicant has been continuously working for the last eight years with the respondents and his case can not be thrown out merely on the ground that his number of working days are less than 120 days in one particular year as it is not the intention of Sub-clause I of Clause 4, detailed hereinabove. What is required is that he must be working on 01.09.1993 and prior to that he must have engaged for a period of at least 240 days. Moreover, as has been admitted by the respondents themselves that in the years 1998 & 2000 the applicant has worked for more than 120 days, therefore, otherwise also his case requires consideration for grant of temporary status and regularisation thereafter. 9. From a perusal of the letter dated 14.9.2001 it is evident that it can not form the basis for a finding that the respondent had worked for 240 days during any calendar year prior to 1.9.1993. Neither the Tribunal has come to any such finding in its order. Yet the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the respondent was covered by the scheme of regularisation and directed for his re-engagement and grant of temporary status under it. 10. The order of the Tribunal is plainly contrary not only to the provisions of scheme but also to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Pal and another (supra). It may be further noted that apart from the provisions of the Scheme, the Tribunal held that in any event the order of removal of respondent from service was bad and not sustainable for the simple reason that it was passed verbally. 11. For coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has again referred to Paragarph-7 of the Scheme which is as follows: Despite conferment of temporary status, the service of a casual labourer may be dispensed with by giving a notice of one month in writing. 11. For coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has again referred to Paragarph-7 of the Scheme which is as follows: Despite conferment of temporary status, the service of a casual labourer may be dispensed with by giving a notice of one month in writing. A casual labourer with temporary status can also quit services by giving a written notice of one month. The wages for the notice period will be payable only for the days on which such casual worker is engaged on work. 12. We are satisfied that the Tribunal has committed yet another error in the matter. Any application of Paragraph-7 of the Scheme would arise only after the casual worker is granted temporary status under the Scheme. As noted above, the respondent was working as casual typist. Admittedly, his engagement was completely illegal since it was made without following any legal procedure of recruitment and he did not even have any letter with regard to his engagement. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no application of Paragraph-7 of the Scheme. 13. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Tribunal based its order on a completely erroneous application of the Scheme to the case of the respondent and without arriving at a positive finding that the respondent had worked for 206 days during a calendar year prior to 1.9.1993. The impugned order is, therefore, completely bad and unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in light of this order and the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Mohan Pal (supra). As the dispute is based on purely a question of fact, it will be open to the parties to lead additional evidence on the issue. 14. This application is allowed, subject to the direction and observations made above. No order as to costs.