JUDGMENT Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. I have gone through the draft judgment and order prepared by my learned Brother, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar, with respect I am unable to agree to His Lordship's conclusion. The reasons of my different conclusion is given hereunder. 2. THE respondents, before this Court who' were successful before the learned Tribunal approached with their grievance that they and/or their predecessor- in-interest were similarly placed and circumstanced with those of the applicants of OA 343 of 1995 (Sambhu II and 32 Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.). They were and/or are working under the applicants and they should be given the same benefit as has been given by the applicants (respondent before the learned Tribunal) in terms of the judgment, and order of the learned Tribunal dated 31st January 1996 passed in the said original application, 343 of 1995. THE respondents were successful to pursue the learned Tribunal that they have been working as casual labour under the respondents and were categorized as daily rated workers like the applicants of OA 343 of 1995. THEy had been discharging same nature of duty as performed by the regular employees of full time post for 25 and 30 years. Those applicants who retired from services from respective dates as have been indicated in their application. Unfortunately on retirement no terminal benefit was granted as has been granted to other workers who filed earlier application. Some of the respondents herein are the widows and having interest in the service benefit of their deceased husband. THE learned Tribunal on fact came to finding that earlier judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31st January 1996 reached its finality as no appeal was preferred therefrom rather review application filed as against the same was dismissed. Subsequently the said judgment and order was implemented carrying out direction given therein. On the aforesaid factual position only question remaining before the learned Tribunal was whether the respondents before us were similarly placed and circumstanced with the applicants in the earlier matter or not and whether they should be given benefit of the said judgment and order. THE learned Tribunal on fact found that the respondents before us also stand on the similar footing with that of the applicants of the earlier application as they were deprived of the similar benefits. THE learned Tribunal on fact found that the respondents before us also stand on the similar footing with that of the applicants of the earlier application as they were deprived of the similar benefits. In the application before us there is no challenge against the aforesaid finding of the similarity. We can not upset fact finding of the learned Tribunal in exercise of power of judicial review in absence of allegation of perverse fact finding. Before the learned Tribunal stand taken by the petitioner before us that the respondents were not similarly placed and such contention has been overruled. Further stand taken before the learned Tribunal that the respondents herein are governed by the Circular being No. 51015 dated 10th September 1993. It is contended that the said Circular was not placed before the learned Tribunal previously in earlier application. I find such contention is incorrect factually as the review application was filed and placing and relying on aforesaid document and the learned Tribunal while dealing with the review application considered the said Circular and found the same was not helpful to the case of the applicants. Hence the sheet anchor of the contention of the petitioners was not accepted and negatively decided earlier. I think the same cannot be agitated before us as the same is hit by the principle of res judicata. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Counsel, contends that no appointment either regularization or otherwise can be made deviating from the rules and scheme and in support of his contention he has relied on large number of decisions of Supreme Court. I think the proposition laid down in those cases are not disputed but here the issue is whether the respondent- before us stand on similar footing with those who were successful in the earlier application and got the benefit or not. I have already noted the Tribunal has found this fact, therefore, logical conclusion is that there cannot be any discrimination amongst the equally placed persons. In support of the contention of the applicant Uma Devi's case, 2006(3) SCC 415, has been cited before us. We are unable to apply this judgment firstly when the impugned judgment was passed this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court was not delivered. In support of the contention of the applicant Uma Devi's case, 2006(3) SCC 415, has been cited before us. We are unable to apply this judgment firstly when the impugned judgment was passed this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court was not delivered. Even it is taken into consideration I find Uma Devi's case was decided on the factual aspect that the daily rated workers were engaged contrary to recruitment rules and the claim for absorption was denied ignoring the recruitment rules. Here the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties previously decided that the employees like applicants as well as the applicants in the previous applications were entitled to be regularized under the scheme floated by the department, as well as the law then subsisting. When earlier judgement of learned Tribunal has been accepted, direction given by the learned Tribunal has become the law relating to regularization of this kind of employees. This judgment was rendered upon deciding all questions and the same is accepted naturally it has become rule and/or law on the same field. If Mr. Sengupta's argument is accepted then in effect earlier judgment of the learned Tribunal which has since reached finality on acceptance would be nugatory and/or infructuous. Therefore, the contention of the respondents in my view does not stand to logic that the relief granted by the learned Tribunal in the present matter is contrary to recruitment rules. Learned Tribunal has correctly concluded that there cannot be any discrimination amongst the persons who are equally placed and the learned Tribunal has rightly protected the respondent. I therefore, dismiss the application and affirm the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. 3. Manik Mohan Sarkar, J. : This application has been directed against the order dated 31.5.2005, passed by the learned Judge, Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 978 of 2000 allowing the said application. 4. RESPONDENT Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the said O.A. before the Tribunal, has brought the present application, being aggrieved over the said order as being the petitioners. 4. RESPONDENT Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the said O.A. before the Tribunal, has brought the present application, being aggrieved over the said order as being the petitioners. In short compass, the petitioners' case is that the petitioner No. 1 engaged in managing Research Institutes in Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, located in different parts of the countty and petitioner No. 2 is a wing of the same and conduct research in the field of jute at Barrackpore, In 1995, Sambhu II and 32 others casual labourers of the petitioner No. 2 filed O.A. No. 343 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, praying for entitlement of all financial/service benefits as are given to regular employees doing similar work, consequential to their retirement. By order dated 31st January, 1996, the learned Tribunal directed that reasonable number of posts are created retrospectively and suitable scheme was to be finalized so that eligible persons covered under the scheme and/or the cut-off period of service, if any, is to be provided in such scheme for payment of pension and other retiral benefits at par with the regular employees. Subsequently, 54 other persons who are respondent's here also filed application being O.A. No. 978 of 2000 before the same Tribunal praying for extension of the benefit of the judgment so passed in O.A. No. 343 of 1995. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the respective parties, disposed of the said O.A. No. 978 of 2000 also with the similar directions on the respondents to create appropriate number of posts for regularization of the eligible applicants and/or their deceased predecessor-in-interest which would be co-terminus with the service and also to provide the eligible applicants all benefits as were granted to the applicants in other way within a stipulated period of four months. 5. FURTHER case of the petitioners is that casual workers under the Indian Council on Agricultural Research were awarded temporary status with effect from 1st September, 1993 as per Rule framed by DOP and T Scheme by Notification O.M. No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C)dated of 10th September, 1993. The service gratuity and other benefits were extended to all such temporary status casual workers as per said guideline and the Council of Agricultural Research has implemented that order and thus regularized the service of 167 casual workers against permanent vacancies of the Institute at various points of time. The service gratuity and other benefits were extended to all such temporary status casual workers as per said guideline and the Council of Agricultural Research has implemented that order and thus regularized the service of 167 casual workers against permanent vacancies of the Institute at various points of time. It is a case of the petitioners that under Rule 4 (IV) of the said Notificarion dated 10th September, 1993, casual workers who acquired temporary status, would not be brought to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process of Group - D and the temporary status employees have been paid with all benefits as per guideline of the said Notification. Since DOP and T came into operation with effect from 1st September, 1993, some applicants were given with temporary status and prior to that some were categorized as casual workers. While examining the eligibility criteria of the labourers as per guideline of the scheme, it was found that about 42 labourers in the Institute Head Quarter at Nilgunj, already crossed the age of sixty years long back and as they were not eligible for appointment as per guideline of the scheme, they would be terminated from the strength of casual workers and others were appointed as temporary status (casual workers) on 17th October, 1994 with retrospective effect from 1st September, 1993. Retiral benefit to 42 labourers who were over-aged being more than sixty years, were under consideration as per guideline of the relevant Rules and Payment under Gratuity Act and other Rules, but before doing so, 33 out of such 42 labourers approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA. No. 343 of 1995. 6. ON the basis of the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal to the said 33 workers and in compliance with the order of the learned Tribunal, 42 numbers of posts were created on co-terminus basis with retrospective effect from 10th January, 1999. As per guideline of the scheme, all the casual workers other than terminated 42 labourers due to over age, were awarded with temporary status with effect from 01.09.1993, but since the pensionary benefit is not provided to the temporary status labourers who retired and/or died after 01.01.1993 were not entitled to have any pension. As per guideline of the scheme, all the casual workers other than terminated 42 labourers due to over age, were awarded with temporary status with effect from 01.09.1993, but since the pensionary benefit is not provided to the temporary status labourers who retired and/or died after 01.01.1993 were not entitled to have any pension. Petitioners in O.A. No 343 of 1995 were considered for pension as per order of the learned Tribunal as at that point of time Circular No. 51016 dated 10th September, 1993 was not available to them. The petitioners in the O.A. No. 978 of 2000 cannot be treated as per with the petitioners of O.A. No. 343 of 1995 and not being similarly placed, with the applicants of O.A. No. 343 of 1995 and they all come within the purview of scheme of 1993 as in the meantime, the casual labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, Govt. of India, 1993 came into effect. ON the attempt of the Institutes ICAR agreed, on principle to create appropriate number, of regular. Group 'D' posts for appropriate number of temporary status workers during the IXth Five year Plan Scheme but due to imposition of the ban on the creation of posts by the Govt. of India, those could not be created till the end of the Plan. The 54 labourers who were granted temporary status and rendered services till they retired or died without regularization and since they all belong to temporary status, accordingly, they were paid with retirement benefits of Gratuity and Provident Fund and they did not deserve to receive pension. As and when any vacancy arose in the main establishment in Group 'D' posts by way of death/retirement those were filled up, not by outsiders but by the casual workers being absorbed under regular establishment and were granted usual retirement benefits including payment of pension. The petitioners submitted that unfortunately, the learned Advocate defending the petitioners' case in OA. No. 343 of 1995 could not produce the scheme of Department of Personnel and Training, 1993 in respect of regularization of casual employees and so that was not considered by the learned Tribunal. 7. IN course of consideration of the present, application, we have extensively heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties and also have gone through the referred documents annexed with the application. 8. 7. IN course of consideration of the present, application, we have extensively heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties and also have gone through the referred documents annexed with the application. 8. THE order, passed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned O.A. No.978 of 2000, was passed following the findings and order passed by the said Tribunal earlier in O.A. No. 343 of 1995 with the observations that the applicants in the impugned O.A. were similarly placed with the applicants of O.A. No. 343 of 1995. Though this Court is not sitting with the scanning of the finding an order in O.A. No. 343 of 1995, in order to consider whether the learned Tribunal was correct in the present finding of O.A. No. 978 of 2000, the reference of the finding made in O.A. No. 343 of 1995 is to be glanced for a while. In the said order passed in O.A. 343 of 1995 it is found that the said learned Tribunal referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.1.1986 in disposing of a writ application filed by Sri Surinder Sing and Ors. vs. Union, of India, where the Hon'ble Apex Court issued specific instructions regarding casual labourers and direction was given to all administrative ministries/departments to review the appoint of casual workers in the offices under their control on a time-bound basis so that at the end of the prescribed period of eligible casual workers are adjusted against, regular posts to the extent, such regular posts are justified and those casual labourers who have put in at least 240 days (206 days in case of offices 5 days in a week) of service as casual labourers (including broken period of service) during each of the two years of service be regularized. It is further observed by the learned Tribunal in that O.A. No. 3.43 of 1995 that for not taking time scale pay by the respondent in that application, as per direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the petitioners in the said applications were subject to termination at the age of 60 years and were not given with the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits as per rule. The learned Tribunal in that O.A., thus, allowed the said writ application by the petitioners in that O.A. and gave direction upon the respondent in that O.A. to review the case of the said petitioners and directed the respondents to re-calculate the retiral benefits payable to the petitioners therein or their legal heirs strictly in accordance with the rules with reference to their length of service and to create reasonable number of posts retrospectively and to regularize the petitioners and others therein appropriately and also to treat them as regularized from the date of their termination of service or the date of their death and also to fix their pay notionally so that they can earn pension/family pension and other pensionary benefits. 9. IN this context, Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Advocate for the petitioners referred to O.A. No. 51016/2/90 - Estt. (C) dated 10th September, 1993 which was in respect of grant of temporary status and regularization of the casual workers. By referring the same, Mr. Sengupta submitted further referring to the appendix of the said Notification/Description of "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme" of Govt. of India, 1993 which was directed to be effective from 1st September, 1993. IN that scheme, temporary status has been described as it would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of the O.M. and who have rendered continuous service of at least one year meaning thereby they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in case of offices observing 5 days) and that such confirmation of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Group 'D' posts. Mr. Sengupta further referred to the nature of work of the said temporary status of casual labourers that their nature of duty and responsibility would be the same as they were doing and their engagement would be on daily rate of pay on need basis. Mr. Sengupta further submitted that the said scheme has not allowed such casual labourers acquiring temporary status, to be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group 'D' posts. 10. MR. Mr. Sengupta further submitted that the said scheme has not allowed such casual labourers acquiring temporary status, to be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group 'D' posts. 10. MR. Sengupta further submitted that the learned Advocate for the present petitioners being respondents in O.A. No. 978 of 2000, failed to produce such Notification and other relevant rules guiding the regularization of temporary status casual labourers to a regularized post of Group 'D'. MR, Sengupta expressed his confidence upon the learned Tribunal disposing of O.A. No. 343 of 1995 by submitting that had the said O.M. dated 10.09.1993 been referred by the learned Advocate for the respondent therein, the decision of the learned Tribunal in disposing of the said O.A. No. 343 of 1995, would have been otherwise. MR. Sengupta further contended that since the scheme of regularization of the casual workers is there, the fate of the petitioners in O.A. No. 978 of 2000 cannot be treated in the similar way as it was done in the case of the petitioners in O.A. No. 343 of 1995. It is further submitted that the decision of the said earlier O.A. cannot be followed as precedence in the present O.A. and thus, MR. Sengupta claimed that the learned Tribunal in disposing of the present O.A. No. 978 of 2000 with the impugned order was not correct and that the similar benefit cannot be extended to the respondent of the present applications which are against the prevailing scheme and rules. Mr. Sengupta, for strengthening his argument, has referred to a decision reported in 2006(3) Supreme 415 (Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi and Ors.) This decision was taken by a larger Bench of five Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court and therein it has been observed. "When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not, based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." 11. MR. Sengupta also refers to the further view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgement that: "If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end, when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified then merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not he entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely, on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme." 12. IN his turn, Mr. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme." 12. IN his turn, Mr. A. Sarkar submitted on behalf of the respondent that disparity or discrimination should not be allowed among the workers provided as in the case of the petitioners in O.A. No. 343 of 1995 and the present respondents since the decision in the earlier proceeding awarded the petitioners therein with the entire retiral benefit of a regular employee of their classes including the pensionary benefit. It is submitted by Mr. Sarkar that since the said decision in O.A. No. 343 of 1995 was not challenged by the respondents therein, the said decision becomes final and the learned Tribunal has made no fault in treating the present respondents with the similar benefit extended by the learned Tribunal in the said earlier O.A. IN this connection, Mr. Sarkar relied on a decision reported in 2000(7) Supreme 98 wherein has been observed: "Be that as it may, what it important in the present case is that the appellant herein had been directed by the High Court in an earlier proceeding to be considered for appointment and be interviewed. That judgment of the High Court dt. 7.8.1997 was not challenged and had become final. This being so, the selection which was made should not be quashed. We allow these appeals, set aside the decision of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and direct the respondents to take further proceedings pursuant to the panel which had been constituted by the Selection Committee. It is further made clear that the salary to the appellant will be paid only from the day he joins duly pursuant to the orders passed in his favour. Formality be completed within two months. No costs." Mr. It is further made clear that the salary to the appellant will be paid only from the day he joins duly pursuant to the orders passed in his favour. Formality be completed within two months. No costs." Mr. Sarkar further submitted that the present respondents including the predecessor of two respondents, had to work of the same nature as that of a regular employee and they continued to do the job for a long period till their retirement, retrenchment or death and as the employees of the same category were regularized by the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 343 of 1995 by way of extension of pensionary benefit and other reliefs at par with the regular employee, the present respondent should not be treated in disparity, as the petitioners in the earlier O.A. have enjoyed those benefits by the decision of the Tribunal itself which attained finality as not being challenged. Mr. Sarkar further relied on another decision reported in 1995(6) Supreme Court Cases 16 in the following words: "Once respondent-State had suffered the mandamus to give consequential financial benefits to the allottees like the petitioners on the basis of the deemed promotions such building direction about payment of consequential monetary benefits cannot be nullified by the impugned provisions of section 4. Therefore, the said portions will have to be read down in the light of orders of the Court which have become final against the respondent-State and insofar as these provisions are inconsistent with these final orders containing such directions of judicial authorities and competent Courts, these impugned provisions of section 4 have to give way and to the extent of such inconsistency must be treated to be inoperative and ineffective. Hence, the said portions of section 4(2), (3) and (8) shall not apply in cases where directions to the contrary of competent Courts against the respondent- State have become final." 13. MR. Sarkar has further submitted that when a mandate has been given by the learned Tribunal in respect of some workers in O.A. No. 343 of 1995 and which has not been set aside, the said mandate has become final and the respondent in that O.A., who are petitioners in the present application, had to comply with the said mandate and gave all retiral benefits to the said petitioners. The learned Tribunal, while disposing of the O.A. No. 978 of 2000, made no wrong in extending the same benefit to the present respondent who have rendered a long course of service under the present petitioners and the process of regularization of them was not done by the present petitioners due to their administrative slothness. It is submitted that why the present respondents will suffer for the inaction on the part of the present petitioners and why the present respondents will get the smaller benefit as extended in the earlier O.A. MR. Sarkar defended the mandate given by the Learned Tribunal in O.A. No.978 of 2000 by the impugned order under challenge and submitted that the benefit extended to the present respondents should not be curtailed. 14. IN consideration of the submission of the respective parties, it is our view that the petitioners being the employer, is guided by some scheme or rules for employment of the employees or regularization of a casual and temporary status employees. The present respondents were given with the temporary status by virtue of O.M. No. 51016/2/90-Estt. Dated 10th September, 1993 of DOP and T and in the said O.M. it has been normally stated that the said scheme was applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India and they are attached to subordinate offices and the engagement was directed to be on daily rate rates of pay on need basis and it has further been stated therein that such casual labourers who acquired temporary status will not, however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group 'D' posts. Pausing here for a moment, it is found that the regularization of a casual labourer with temporary status has been subjected to regular selection process only and if there is no such regular selection process, the casual labourers with temporary status cannot claim the status of a regular employee of Group 'D' posts. 15. Pausing here for a moment, it is found that the regularization of a casual labourer with temporary status has been subjected to regular selection process only and if there is no such regular selection process, the casual labourers with temporary status cannot claim the status of a regular employee of Group 'D' posts. 15. IN further scanning of the said O.M. dated 10.9.1993 it is found that the said casual labourers with temporary status were directed to be treated at par with temporary Group - D employees for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund and made eligible for grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance and to the Productivity Link Bonus/Ad hoc Bonus, There is a specific stipulation in the said O.M. which would be admissible to casual labourers with temporary status. Further, we have also consulted the decision referred by the petitioner as reported in 2006(3) Supreme - 415 and there it has been specifically clarified by the Hon'ble Court that even if a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was hot made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. 16. WHEN there has been a specific provision in the scheme and rule of the Central Government in respect of regularization of a casual worker or casual worker with temporary status, any mandate by the Tribunal to some workers against the said rule or scheme, cannot automatically put the present respondents in the stage of entitlement automatically. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Sarkar for the respondents that when the mandate given in O.A. No. 343 of 1995 has not been challenged or set aside, had become final and the present respondents will be entitled to the benefit given to the petitioners therein automatically. WHEN there is specific scheme or rule in respect of regularization of a casual worker with temporary status, such mandate will be of no help to the present respondents even though they had worked in the concern of the petitioner for a considerable period of time around twenty to twenty-five years. WHEN there is specific scheme or rule in respect of regularization of a casual worker with temporary status, such mandate will be of no help to the present respondents even though they had worked in the concern of the petitioner for a considerable period of time around twenty to twenty-five years. The decision in Uma Devi's case is a clear guideline in respect of the process of regularization of a casual worker with temporary status and unless that is done, a worker with temporary status cannot claim, the same benefit obtained by the petitioners in O.A. No. 343 of 1995 and it cannot be extended automatically to the present respondents. 17. IT may be that there is an explanation from the side of the petitioners that the department concerned of the petitioner was very much sympathetic to the workers concerned and were in the process of creation of regular posts in sufficient number to accommodate the workers of temporary status with regular character in due process of law, and even if there is such venture in giving such benefit due to ban imposed against new employment by the Central Government for a considerable period of time, that cannot come in the rescue process to the present respondents since none of them went through the due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. 18. IN consideration of all the submissions made by the respective parties and also on consideration of the materials in the record and decisions referred by the respective parties, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal was not correct in disposing of O.A. No. 978 of 2000 by the impugned order treating the present respondents in the similar footing with the petitioners in O.A. No. 343 of 1995. Though O.A. No. 343 of 1995 remains with a character of finality, it may be treated as subjective only to the petitioner therein and it cannot be treated as a precedence since the provisions of relevant rules prescribing the due process of selection either at the stage of initial appointment or at the stage of regularization was not followed. As that has not been done at any stage in respect of the present respondents, either the present respondents cannot be provided with all retiral benefits as that of a regular employee including the benefit of pension. As that has not been done at any stage in respect of the present respondents, either the present respondents cannot be provided with all retiral benefits as that of a regular employee including the benefit of pension. With such observation, we are of the view that the decision passed by the learned Tribunal under the impugned order cannot be sustained and it should be set aside. Thus, the present application is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 978 of 2000 is hereby set aside. 19. IN the prevailing circumstances, we pass no order as to costs. 20. JUDGEMENT delivered. Since in this matter we have differed in coming to conclusion, the matter be placed before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for appropriate action. W.P.C.T. 503 of 2005 July 11, 2007 Prabir Dasgupta for the petitioners; A. Sarkar for the respondents. 30a. Affidavit are kept on record. 30b. This matter is adjourned for one week from date, W.P.C.T. 503 of 2005 Indira Banerjee, J. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Ors. vs. Taramoni II and Ors. May 19, 2009 L.K. Gupta for the petitioner; Prabir Das Gupta for the respondents. Indira Banerjee, J.: This writ application is directed against a judgment and order dated 31st March, 2005 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O. A. 978 of 2000 (Taramon II and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.), 21. THE writ application was heard by a Division Bench comprising Their Lordships, Hon'ble Justice K.J. Sengupta and the Hon'ble Justice M.M. Sarkar (As His Lordship, then was). THere being a difference of opinion between Their Lordships, the writ application has been referred to me as third judge. While His Lordship the, Hon'ble Justice K.J. Sengupta dismissed the application. His Lordship Hon'ble Justice M.M. Sarkar (As His Lordship then was), allowed the writ application. 22. THE facts giving rise to this writ application are very briefly enumerated hereinafter. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, hereinafter referred to as ICAR, is inter alia engaged in managing research institutions in agriculture, animal husbandry and fishery. ICAR manages research institutions located in different parts of the country. 23. THE Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics at Barrackpore which carries on research in the field of jute and allied fabric is managed by ICAR. 24. ICAR manages research institutions located in different parts of the country. 23. THE Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics at Barrackpore which carries on research in the field of jute and allied fabric is managed by ICAR. 24. IN 1995 Sambhu II and 32 other casual workers of the Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench being. O.A. No.343 of 1995 inter alia praying for financial/service benefits as are given to regular employees of the Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics doing the same work. By an order dated 31st January, 1996 the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed O.A. No.343 of 1995 and inter alia directed that a reasonable number of posts be created retrospectively for regularization inter alia of the applicants in O.A. 343 of 1995 in the said posts by framing and/or finalizing a suitable scheme. 25. THE operative part of the said order dated 31st January, 1996 is extracted hereinbelow for convenience: "We, therefore, dispose of this application with the following orders: i) within three months, from the date of communication of this order, the Secretary, Union Agriculture Ministry (Deptt. of Agricultural Research and Education) and the Director General, ICAR, shall review the case of the petitioners and decide the following and pass appropriate orders: a) Recalculate the retiral benefits payable to the petitioners or their legal heirs strictly in accordance with the rules with reference to their length of service and pay them the difference from what has been already paid to them along with 18% interest per annum on the balance amount now payable with effect from 1.1.95. Each and every petitioners or their legal successor shall be communicated through a speaking order the computation of such payments, by also indicating the rules and regulations under which such payments are being made. THE above payment shall be treated as provisional pending total review and finalisation of the case of the petitioners as ordered below. b) THE case of all the casual labours referred to in the communication of the Director, Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics, dt. THE above payment shall be treated as provisional pending total review and finalisation of the case of the petitioners as ordered below. b) THE case of all the casual labours referred to in the communication of the Director, Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics, dt. 22.7.93 (Annexure -A3 to the petition) including the present petitioners be further reviewed by the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and DG, ICAR, in the light of the instructions of DOPT and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated above, and see that reasonable number of posts are created retrospectively and a suitable scheme finalised so that the petitioners and others are regularised in service appropriately so that the eligible persons, covered under the scheme and/or the cut off period of service, if any to be provided in such scheme, can get pension and other retiral benefits at par with regular employees. In the context of such scheme and/or cut off period of services as casual labours, eligible amongst the present petitioners or husband of the petitioner Nos. 31 and 33 as the case may be, should be deemed to be regularised at lease with effect from the date of their termination of service or the date of their death, as the case may be, and their pay be fixed notionally so that they can earn pension/family pension and other pensionary benefits as per rules/scheme. c) THE above exercise as mentioned at sub-para (b) above be done and appropriate orders issued within six months from the date of communication of this order. All payments arising out of implementation of this order be also paid to the petitioners within two months thereafter." 26. THE aforesaid order was accepted and acted upon. THE benefit of the said order was, however, given only to the applicants in OA 343 of 1995 and not to other similarly circumstanced casual workers. About four years later, the respondents made an application being O.A. No.978 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Taramoni II and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.) praying for extension of the benefit of the judgment and/or order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Sambhu II and Ors. to the respondents. 27. About four years later, the respondents made an application being O.A. No.978 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Taramoni II and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.) praying for extension of the benefit of the judgment and/or order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Sambhu II and Ors. to the respondents. 27. BY the order dated 31st March, 2005 impugned in this writ application, the learned Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.978 of 2000 by inter alia directing the petitioners to create appropriate number of posts, for regularization of the 54 respondents, coterminous with their service as had been done in the case of Sambhu II and others and to grant to the respondents the benefits that had been granted to Sambhu II and others covered by the said order dated 31st January, 1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 28. MR. L.K. Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in 1986, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, had passed a judgment directing the Government of India to frame a scheme to confer benefits on casual employees working at different offices of the Government of India. In September, 1993, the Government framed a scheme providing benefits to the casual employees who were in employment on the date on which the scheme was implemented. In accordance with the scheme, the casual workers were inter alia given temporary status, and designated as Temporary Status Casual Labourers (TSCL), The scheme provided that TSCL could only be regularized by following the recruitment rules, subject to availability of vacancies in sanctioned posts. 29. IN terms of the 1993 scheme, ICAR and its affiliated units allowed temporary status and other benefits to its casual labourers who were in employment. So far 196 TSCL have been regularized in, service against permanent vacancies. 30. MR. Gupta submitted that the benefits of the scheme could not be given to 42 casual labourers who had crossed the age of 60 years, when the scheme was implemented. Out of those 42, 33 casual labourers were parties to O.A. No.343 of 1995 (Sambhu II and others). The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal was implemented with regard to the said 33 casual labourers to whom the 1993 scheme did not apply. Mr. Gupta submitted that the respondents are not similarly circumstanced as the applicants in O.A. No.343 of 1995 (Sambhu II and others). The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal was implemented with regard to the said 33 casual labourers to whom the 1993 scheme did not apply. Mr. Gupta submitted that the respondents are not similarly circumstanced as the applicants in O.A. No.343 of 1995 (Sambhu II and others). The difference according to Mr. Gupta is that the applicants in O.A. No.343 of 1995 did not come under the 1993 scheme as they were not in employment on the date of implementation of the scheme. The respondents, however, came under the 1993 scheme and could not thus claim equality with the applicants in O.A. No. 343 of 1995. 31. MR. Gupta submitted that as per 1993 scheme, TSCL are not straightway entitled to regularization and/or absorption. Special treatment of TSCL of one particular Institute, that is, Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ICAR, which is under the control of the Government of India has 70 Institutes in the country, where there are TSCL. 32. IN support of his submission that casual labourers, could not be directed to be regularized Mr. Gupta cited the following decisions: i. Secretary, State of Karnataka- and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors., reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 . ii. Accounts Officer (A and I) A.P.SRTC and Ors. vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and Ors., reported in 2006(7) SCC 488 . iii. Surinder Prasad Tiwari vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors., reported in 2006(7) SCC 684 . Mr. Sarkar appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, claimed that the Sambhu II group and the Taramoni II group, that is, the respondents, belong to the same category and their names were in the same list. In this context the attention of this Court was drawn to the communication of the Director, Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics dated 22nd July, 1993 and the list of casual workers appended thereto where the names Of the respondents and of Sambhu II and others, that is, the applicants in OA 343 of 1995 were serially arranged on the basis of their respective dates of engagement. 33. MR. 33. MR. Sarkar submitted that the petitioners having accepted the verdict of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Sambhu II and others, were precluded from raising any objection to this order, whereby the benefit of the judgment in Sambhu II was extended to similarly circumstanced applicants of O.A. No.978 of 2000 being the respondents herein. 34. IN reply Mr. Gupta submitted that there were two factors in favour of the petitioners. Firstly, Sambhu II and others were not similarly circumstanced as the respondents and in any case, there was a change in the legal position in view of the judgment in Uma Devi's case. Mr. Gupta argued that differences arose between the two groups of casual labourers after the implementation of the 1993 Scheme, since those casual labourers who had attained the age of 60 years, were not covered by the scheme. 35. MR. Gupta argued that even if there was no difference between the two sets of employees, the question of regularization of the second set could not arise in view of the change of law with the pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). 36. I have gone through the judgments of my esteemed brothers. The Hon'ble Justice K.J. Sengupta dismissed the writ application and His Lordship Hon'ble Justice M.M. Sarkar (As His Lordship then was), allowed the writ application. The Central Administrative Tribunal has, on assessment of the relevant materials on record arrived at the factual finding that the applicants in O.A. No. 978 of 2000, that is, Taramoni II and others, being the respondents herein were similarly circumstanced as the applicants in O.A. No. 343 of 1995 that is, Sambhu II and the others. 37. IN Executive Engineer and Anr. vs. Suresh Chandra Sharma, reported in 2004(13) SCC 410 , relied upon by Mr. Sarkar, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference with findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court was not called for. 38. THE factual findings of the Central Administrative. Tribunal cannot also be interfered with in-proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court has thus to proceed on the basis of the factual finding that the two groups of casual labourers were similarly circumstanced. In State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha, reported in 2006(2) SCC 747 cited by Mr. THE factual findings of the Central Administrative. Tribunal cannot also be interfered with in-proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court has thus to proceed on the basis of the factual finding that the two groups of casual labourers were similarly circumstanced. In State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha, reported in 2006(2) SCC 747 cited by Mr. Sarkar, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently." 39. THE law laid down by the Supreme Court in C. Lalitha (supra) supports the contention that the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 343 of 1995 ought to be applied to all similarly circumstanced casual employees including the respondents herein. 40. IN Union of INdia vs. Carpenter Workers Union, reported in 2006(12) SCC 435 , relied upon by Mr. Sarkar, the benefits granted to carpenters of the East Zone of Prasar Bharati pursuant to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, were directed to be granted to the employees of the other zones of Prasar Bharati. In K. Prabhakar Rao vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in JT 2001(5) SC 573, cited by Mr. Sarkar, the Supreme Court held that two judgments of the Ernakulum Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal with regard to fixation of minimum percentage of marks for the viva voce examination, that had assumed finality, would have to be applied to the appellants before the Supreme Court being the applicants in OA 149 of 1992 and OA 873 of 1991, who were similarly circumstanced. 41. IN State of Karnataka vs. Karnataka State Patel Sangha, reported in 2007(4) SCC 207 , cited by Mr. Sarkar, the Supreme Court held that two groups of holders of village offices discharging identical duties should be given the same benefits. 42. IN Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors., reported in 2006(11) SCC 1 , cited by Mr. Sarkar, the Supreme Court held that two groups of holders of village offices discharging identical duties should be given the same benefits. 42. IN Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors., reported in 2006(11) SCC 1 , cited by Mr. L.K. Gupta the Supreme Court deprecated appointments in contravention of the constitutional scheme of equality of opportunity and held that temporary, ad hoc, contractual daily wage or casual workers appointed de hors the rules could not be directed to be absorbed and/or regularized on the ground of their having rendered service for a long period of time. The issue is whether the judgment in Umadevi's case enables the authorities concerned to discriminate between two sets of casual workers equally circumstanced or to ignore the judicial verdicts of the Central Administrative Tribunal issued long before pronouncement of the judgment in Umadevi's case, which had assumed finality. The answer to the aforesaid question cannot but be in the negative for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 43. IN Accounts Officer (A and I) A.P.SRTC and Ors. vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and Ors., reported in 2006(7) SCC 488 , the Supreme Court following its earlier decision in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra) held that employees not recruited through the prescribed departmental selection committee could not be regularized pursuant to orders of Court. The aforesaid judgment is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as there was no discrimination between two classes of casual workers similarly circumstanced. 44. IN the instant case, the implementation of the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in case of the applicants in OA No. 343 of 1995, that is, Sambhu II and 32 Others has resulted in discrimination against the respondents. The petitioners were obliged to meted out equal treatment to the respondents. The judgment in Umadevi (supra) was delivered on 10th April, 2006 after the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal had been passed. The right of the respondents accrued long back, when the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 343 of 1995 was implemented. 45. The petitioners were obliged to meted out equal treatment to the respondents. The judgment in Umadevi (supra) was delivered on 10th April, 2006 after the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal had been passed. The right of the respondents accrued long back, when the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 343 of 1995 was implemented. 45. A careful reading of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 31st January, 1996 in OA 343 of 1995 (Sambhu II and others) and in particular the operative part thereof makes it absolutely clear that the benefits of the said order are not to be restricted to the applicants therein but extended to others similarly circumstanced, including in particular the casual workers referred to in the communication dated 22.07.1993 of the Director of the Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics. The names of the respondents were included in the list appended to the said circular along with Sambhu II and others. 46. IN any case, whether or not the respondents initiated any proceedings, benefits conferred upon other similarly circumstanced, ought to have been extended to them. The liability to comply with the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal delivered on 31st March, 2005 cannot be avoided on the ground of the subsequent pronouncement in Umadevi's case. In any case, even otherwise, there can be no question of discrimination between two sets of employees equally circumstanced. The claim of the respondents was not merely based on the length of their service. There was a categorical assertion of discrimination by reason of implementation of the decision of the Tribunal in case of Sambhu II and thirty two others. 47. THE judgment in Uma Devi (supra) has been explained and distinguished in U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey, reported in 2007(11) SCC 92 , where the Supreme Court held as follows: "We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find that often Umadevi (3) case is being applied by Courts mechanically as if it were a Euclid's formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar University and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar University and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Hence, in our opinion, Umadevi (3) case cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Umadevi (3) case inapplicable to the facts of that case. In the present case the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) only with that they should not be discriminated against vis-a-vis the original employees of the Electricity Board since they have been taken over by the Electricity Board "in the same manner and position". Thus, the writ petitioners have to be deemed to have been appointed in the service of the Electricity Board from the date of their original appointments in the Society. Since they were all appointed in the Society before 4.5.1990 they cannot be denied the benefit of the decision of the Electricity Board who were working from before 4.5.1990. To take a contrary view would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. We have to read Umadevi (3) case in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot read it in a manner which will make it in conflict with Article 14. THE Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any judgment, not even of the Supreme Court, can violate the Constitution." 48. IN Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand, reported in 2008(10) SCC 1 , cited by Mr. L.K. Gupta a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, however, held that by virtue of Article 141, the judgment of the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra) was binding on all Courts including the Supreme Court. In Dayanand's case, the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review could be exercised only if it could be shown that the action of the employer was contrary to any Constitutional or statutory provisions. The action in this case is patently contrary to the right of the respondents to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 49. A judgment is a precedent for what it decides. In Dayanand's case the Supreme Court was concerned with a claim for regularization on the ground of continuous service for years and not on the ground of discrimination. 49. A judgment is a precedent for what it decides. In Dayanand's case the Supreme Court was concerned with a claim for regularization on the ground of continuous service for years and not on the ground of discrimination. In the cases of Umadevi (supra) and P. Chandra Sekhara Rao (supra) too the claims for regularization were merely based on length of continuous engagement. No case of discrimination had been made out. 50. THE differentiation sought to be made between the two groups of casual workers, otherwise similarly circumstanced, on the basis of their date of attaining the age of retirement is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law. The judgment in Sambhu II and others was rendered after implementation of the 1993 Scheme. Mr. Gupta submitted that through omission of lawyers engaged on behalf of the petitioners in OA 343 of 1995, the attention of the Central Administrative Tribunal was not drawn to the 1993 scheme, which could not, in any case, be implemented in case of the applicants in OA 343 of 1995. 51. EVEN assuming that the attention of the Central Administrative Tribunal was not drawn to the 1993 Scheme, denial of the benefit of the order of the Tribunal to the respondents cannot be legally sustained. The petitioners cannot take advantage of their own wrong and/or the wrong of their lawyers to deny a group of similarly circumstanced casual workers, retiral benefits given to others. 52. AS observed above, the final order of the Tribunal in OA 343 covered all eligible casual workers referred to in the communication dated 22.7.1993 of the Director of the Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics including the respondents. Whatever be the reason, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioners to confer on the applicants before it and other similarly circumstanced casual workers benefits better than those provided under the 1993 Scheme. Having accepted the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners ought not to have selectively implemented the order and extended the benefits thereof only to the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 53. Having accepted the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners ought not to have selectively implemented the order and extended the benefits thereof only to the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 53. AFTER accepting the verdict in the case of Sambhu II and others and extending the benefit of regularization to Sambhu II and others, notwithstanding the 1993 Scheme, there could be no justification in denying the respondents the better benefits, of the judgment including retiral benefits just because they had not crossed the age of retirement when the 1993 Scheme was implemented. 54. THE petitioners did not question the directions to create appropriate number of posts, regularize casual employees to the said posts and grant them retiral benefits. It is, therefore, not open to them to insist that another group of casual workers, equal in all respects except for the fortuitous circumstance of their not having cross the age of retirement on 1.9.1993 should only be given the benefit of the 1993 Scheme. The two sets of casual workers were equal in all respects except that one set had attained age of retirement on 1.9.1993 whereas the other set had not. For having rendered service after 1.9.1993, a set of workers cannot be denied retiral and other benefits given to those who had attained the age of retirement before that day. The differentiation sought to be made out is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 55. BY the order impugned, the Central Administrative Tribunal has in effect directed the petitioners to implement an earlier order of the Tribunal in OA 343 of 1995 to the respondents who had arbitrarily been excluded, from its implementation without any rational justification. 56. THE Central Administrative Tribunal, as observed above, arrived at the finding that the respondents were equally circumstanced as Sambhu II and others and rightly so. This Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over orders passed by the Tribunal. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. In the absence of, violation of principles of natural justice, perversity and/or patent illegality interference of the Writ Court with an order of Tribunal is not warranted. 57. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. In the absence of, violation of principles of natural justice, perversity and/or patent illegality interference of the Writ Court with an order of Tribunal is not warranted. 57. THE order impugned was passed before pronouncement of the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra) and the other cases cited by Mr. Gupta which followed and/or approved the pronouncement in Umadevi's case. Unlike an appeal, a writ petition is not a continuation of the proceedings before the Tribunal. THE order impugned has to be considered having regard to the law when the order was passed. There are no grounds for interference' with the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 58. I am unable to agree with M. M. Sarkar, J. and I agree, with K.J. Sengupta, J., who has dismissed the writ application, Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties subject to compliance with the requisite formalities. W.P.C.T. No. 503 of 2005 June 18, 2008 59. LET this matter be listed for hearing on Tuesday next at the top of the list irrespective of any other matter. W.P.C.T. No. 503 of 2005 August 25, 2008 Prabir Sengupta for the petitioner; A. Sarkar for the respondents. 60. IT is submitted that the Division Bench has delivered a judgement covering the issues involved in this writ application. The certificate copy of the judgement has not yet been made available to the petitioner. This matter is, accordingly, adjourned for two weeks. W.P.C.T. No. 503 of 2005. September 17, 2008 L. K. Gupta for the petitioner. 61. THIS appeal was heard by a Division Bench. There being a difference of opinion between the two Judges of the Division Bench, the appeal has been referred to me as 3rd Judge. 62. ON 25th August, 2008 it was submitted that a certified copy of the judgments delivered by the respective Judges of the Division Bench on 23rd April, 2008 had not been made available to the petitioner. Let a xerox plain copy the judgment of the Division Bench be made over to the respective parties on their undertaking to apply for and obtain a certified copy of the same. W.P.C.T. No. 503 of 2005 March 17, 2008 Ashok Sarkar for the respondent. 63. Let a xerox plain copy the judgment of the Division Bench be made over to the respective parties on their undertaking to apply for and obtain a certified copy of the same. W.P.C.T. No. 503 of 2005 March 17, 2008 Ashok Sarkar for the respondent. 63. LET this matter appear on 24.3.2009 on top of the list as Specially Fixed Matter. W.P.C.T. No. 503 of 2005 A. K. Ganguly and T. K. Dutt, JJ. In the matter of: Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Ors. vs. Taramoni-II and Ors. August 8, 2005 Prabir Dasgupta for the petitioners. 64. HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the direction given by the Central Administrative Tribunal we are admitting this application. Let affidavit-in-opposition to the writ application be filed by the respondents within four weeks from date, reply thereto, if any two weeks thereafter. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 65. THE learned Counsel for the petitioners is directed to communicate this order to the learned Counsel for the respondents. W.P.C.T. No. 503 of 2005 June 13, 2008 Put up before Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee.