ORDER 1. Leave Granted. 2. The respondent in all these appeals claimed that they worked as casual labourers on daily wage basis, at various sites of the appellants - the Archaeological. Department of India. The respondents filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction that they be given temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993, dated 10.9.1993. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed that they be given temporary status after screening and calculating the period of service, under the said Scheme. The Department challenged the said orders by filing writ petitions. The order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court declining to interfere with the said order of the Tribunal is under challenge in these appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and also learned senior counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that all the respondents were engaged as casual workers on work-charge basis, as and when the funds were made available to the department by the Government, for specific project. It is pointed• out that the work at various sites depended upon the need for repairs, maintenance, security of archaeological monuments and sanction of funds and the respondents were not engaged for 240 days in a year. It is also contended that the 1993 Scheme was a one time scheme and was not intended to apply to all casual workers as and when they completed 240 days of service in a year. It is also submitted that none of the respondents fulfilled the criteria for conferment of temporary status under the Scheme. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents were entitled to get temporary status, but was unable to show that the respondents were regularly employed. There are no documents to show either appointment or termination or continuous service for the prescribed period. 5. Learned senior counsel for the respondents next submitted that some persons engaged subsequent to respondents were continued in some places. The learned counsel for appellant disputed the position. There are no documents to show either appointment or termination or continuous service for the prescribed period. 5. Learned senior counsel for the respondents next submitted that some persons engaged subsequent to respondents were continued in some places. The learned counsel for appellant disputed the position. He stated that if respondents were engaged in some projects at an earlier point of time and some others were engaged in some other projects at a later point of time, and if the projects in which respondents were engaged ended earlier, and the projects where others were engaged continued, it cannot be said that there is any inter-se seniority or that the juniors were continued while dispensing with services of seniors. Be that as it may. 6. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the respondents have failed to 2008 (2) Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise establish that they are entitled to get temporary status under the 1993 Scheme. However, as and when the archaeological department has work in any particular site and as and when the funds are available, the department may consider employing the respondents for causal work in the work charged establishment, by giving them preference over any newcomers. For this purpose the respondents may register themselves with the respective offices of the department. We make it clear that this observation shall not be treated as creating or recognizing any right in the respondents to get any status or to claim regularisation. 7. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court challenged in these appeals and dispose of these appeals with the said observation. No costs.