Judgment D. Hariparanthaman, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the order dated 16.08.2005 passed in O.A.No.617 of 2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (shortly the Tribunal) upholding the notification in Memo No.B II / 264 dated 20.07.2005 issued by the third respondent. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- a) The petitioner in O.A.No.617 of 2005 is the petitioner in the present writ petition. Her mother worked as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master for 22 years in Manjalamoodu Branch Post Office. While her mother was in service, she died in a road accident on 07.09.2001. Therefore, the petitioner requested the Department to provide her compassionate appointment. Based on her request, she was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster (shortly EDBPM) from 010. 2001 (EDBPM was later renamed as GDS BPM) at the same office as stop gap arrangement pending decision of the request for compassionate appointment. Her request for compassionate appointment was rejected by an order dated 07.04.2004. b) The petitioner challenged the same in O.A.No.392 of 2004. Though the Tribunal, by an order dated 05.08.2004, refused to interfere with the order dated 07.04.2004 refusing to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on regular basis, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider her case for inclusion in the dovetailed list and grant her the consequential benefits. The penultimate paragraph of the order dated 05.08.2004 passed in O.A.No.392 of 2004 is as follows: "6. In view of the discussion above, we hold the view that the following limited direction will meet the ends of justice. i) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for inclusion of her name in the dovetailed list and grant her the consequential benefits. ii) This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii) OA is allowed to the extent indicated above. iv) No costs". c) The petitioner continued in service in view of the interim order during the pendency of the Original Application in O.A.No.392 of 2004. d) The third respondent again passed an order dated 05.04.2005 in Memo No.B II / CAT 110, terminating the provisional appointment of the petitioner. iii) OA is allowed to the extent indicated above. iv) No costs". c) The petitioner continued in service in view of the interim order during the pendency of the Original Application in O.A.No.392 of 2004. d) The third respondent again passed an order dated 05.04.2005 in Memo No.B II / CAT 110, terminating the provisional appointment of the petitioner. e) Thus, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.311 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and obtained an order of interim stay of termination on 13.04.2005. f) The Tribunal passed an order dated 04.07.2005 in O.A.No.311 of 2005 to restore the services of the petitioner within a week pending regular appointment is made. g) While so, the third respondent issued the notification in Memo No.B II / 264 dated 20.07.2005 to fill up the post of GDS BPM at Manjalamoodu Branch Post Office on regular basis and called for applications. h) The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.617 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal to quash the said notification. i) However, the said O.A.No.617 of 2005 was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 16.08.2005. The Tribunal held that there is no illegality in the Department issuing the impugned notification to fill the GDS BPM on regular basis, since the petitioner was appointed only as stop gap arrangement. Regarding the direction of the Tribunal in O.A.No.392 of 2004 directing the respondents to include her in the dovetailed list and to give benefit accordingly, the Tribunal noted that the said order was stayed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and she is continuing in the post by virtue of the interim order. 3. The respondents 2 to 4 have not filed any counter affidavit either in O.A.No.617 of 2005 or in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 argued based on instructions. 4. The main plea of the petitioner is that the matter is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in Union of India, rep. by the Superintendent of Post Offices (West), West Division, Sooramangalam, Salem District Vs. A. Suguna and another reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 . 5. 4. The main plea of the petitioner is that the matter is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in Union of India, rep. by the Superintendent of Post Offices (West), West Division, Sooramangalam, Salem District Vs. A. Suguna and another reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 . 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition in W.P.No.31702 of 2004 filed against the order dated 05.08.2004 made in O.A.No.392 of 2004 was also disposed in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 . The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that the Tribunal dismissed the O.A.No.617 of 2005, taking into account that the order dated 05.08.2004 in O.A.No.392 of 2004 was stayed by this Court on 011. 2004 in W.P.No.31702 of 2004. While dismissing the said Original Application, the Tribunal also noted that the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.436 of 2003 dated 05.03.2004 was also stayed by this Court on 16.08.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.28394 of 2004 in W.P.No.23447 of 2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that both the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.23447 and 31702 of 2004 form part of the batch of writ petitions that was disposed of in the decision reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 . He further states that the respondents took up the matter to the Apex Court and though the Special Leave Petition was admitted, no interim stay was granted. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the present writ petition may be disposed in terms of the judgment reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 , for, the benefit of regularization given under the dovetailed list scheme is subject to the result of the case pending in the Apex Court against the said judgment. 6. We have perused the aforesaid decision reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 . The judgment refers to the long history of various orders passed by the Tribunal relating to the directions given by the Tribunal to give regular appointment to provisional appointees. 7. By perusing the said judgment, it seems that the Tribunal issued directions on 11.02.1988 in O.A.No.769 of 1987 to give regular appointment in the vacancies for the post of Extra Departmental Agents to the Casual Labourers, who served in the Department and were terminating before 11.02.1988. 7. By perusing the said judgment, it seems that the Tribunal issued directions on 11.02.1988 in O.A.No.769 of 1987 to give regular appointment in the vacancies for the post of Extra Departmental Agents to the Casual Labourers, who served in the Department and were terminating before 11.02.1988. This was the first case where the Tribunal gave such a direction. It was followed by the order dated 20.04.1990 by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.811 of 1988 and batch, directing the Department to prepare two lists, one of Casual Labourers and the other of ED provisional appointees / substitutes and that both the lists should be dovetailed on the basis of the date of their initial appointment and that thereafter, they should be absorbed against the vacancies for the post of EDS / GDS. Here again, the cut-off date was 11.02.1988 and however, the scope was enlarged to include ED provisional appointees and ED substitutes. 8. The Department continued to employ ED provisional appointees, ED provisional appointees and ED substitutes even after 20.04.1990 i.e. the date of the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal made in O.A.NO.811 of 1988 and batch. These employees felt that the cut-off date of 11.02.1988 was unreasonable as they were recruited after 11.02.1988 and were similarly placed like those recruited prior to 11.02.1988. They approached the Tribunal in V. Kumar and others Vs. Union of India case reported in 1994 (27) ATC 346 and contended that the cut-off date 11.02.1988 should be removed from the scheme and that all should be absorbed without reference to 11.02.1988. In the said case, the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, submitted a Circular on 23.06.1993 and the same was approved by the Tribunal. This led to the Scheme of dovetailed list being evolved by the Department. 9. Pursuant to the said judgment of the Tribunal in V. Kumars case the Scheme of dovetailed list was evolved by the Department vide circular dated 212. 1993. It is popularly called the dovetailed Scheme dated 212. 1993. The salient feature of the Scheme is that while the cut-off date 11.02.1988 was made applicable to Extra Departmental substitutes, no such restriction was placed to the Extra Departmental provisional appointees and Casual Labourers. 1993. It is popularly called the dovetailed Scheme dated 212. 1993. The salient feature of the Scheme is that while the cut-off date 11.02.1988 was made applicable to Extra Departmental substitutes, no such restriction was placed to the Extra Departmental provisional appointees and Casual Labourers. The reason assigned by the Department was that while the Extra Departmental substitutes / outsiders were the persons appointed by the regular Extra Departmental appointees by themselves, while they go on leave and that therefore, the Department does not have direct control over them, while the Casual Labourers and the Extra Departmental provisional appointees are directly appointed by the Department. Further, as per the Scheme, one will be included in the dovetailed list, if he has worked for 240 days of service in any two years and will be provided regular appointment in the vacancies of Extra Departmental posts based on the seniority in the dovetailed list. Clause 4(g) of the Scheme is heavily relied on by the petitioner and the same was also referred to by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 . Clause 4(g) of the Scheme is extracted here-under: "4(g) Provisional appointees for ED post who are appointed after 12. 1988 and allowed to continue for more than 240 days will also be included in the dovetailed list.....” 10. However, the Department sought to interfere with the Scheme by a Circular dated 05.07.1995 and the said Circular was quashed by another Full Bench of the Tribunal by an order dated 17.04.2000 in O.A.No.386 of 1998 and the Department was directed to implement the Scheme. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore argued that the Scheme was continued and the regularization was made based on the dovetailed list. Again, the Department, refused to extend the benefit of the Scheme to some of the Extra Departmental employees on the ground that they were employed as stop gap arrangement. That was the subject matter in the decision of another Full Bench, dated 05.03.2004 in O.A.No.436 of 2003. 12. In the said Full Bench decision, the Tribunal held that the nomenclature is not relevant and the stop gap arrangement is also a provisional appointment and that therefore, the Scheme of dovetailed list should also cover those cases. That was the subject matter in the decision of another Full Bench, dated 05.03.2004 in O.A.No.436 of 2003. 12. In the said Full Bench decision, the Tribunal held that the nomenclature is not relevant and the stop gap arrangement is also a provisional appointment and that therefore, the Scheme of dovetailed list should also cover those cases. The said Full Bench decision dated 05.03.2004 in O.A.No.436 of 2003 as well as the decision dated 05.08.2004 in O.A.No.392 of 2004 along with other batch of writ petitions were disposed by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 . 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn to our attention to the said judgment, where the learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the Scheme should not be applied eternally and the answer given by the Division Bench of this Court to such plea of the Department. The Division Bench of this Court, while giving liberty to the Department not to apply the Scheme to future appointees, it was made clear that the Scheme should be applied to the persons who are entitled to the benefit under the Scheme. The said view and direction of the Division Bench of this Court is extracted here-under: "we are of the view that the department is liable to extend the benefit of the scheme until the last eligible casual labourer full time and part time, EDA/GDS (provisional appointee or substitute or outsiders) is absorbed against the existing and future vacancies of GDA/GDS............. It is also brought to our notice that except the persons concerned in these writ petitions, in view of the dispensation of the appointment and selection as per the scheme, the department is not required to consider others". 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that others could not claim benefit under the Scheme, but the benefit under the Scheme is specifically extended to the writ petitioners covered by the order of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 and that the present petitioner is one among them and that the Tribunal also noted the said fact in the impugned order. 15. In view of the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 , we are inclined to quash the order dated 16.08.2005 passed in O.A.No.617 of 2005. 15. In view of the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2006 (1) CTC 25 , we are inclined to quash the order dated 16.08.2005 passed in O.A.No.617 of 2005. Accordingly, the order dated 16.08.2005 passed in O.A.No.617 of 2005 by the Tribunal is set aside with a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner for inclusion of her name in the dovetailed list and to absorb her in the service based on her seniority in the dovetailed list. The vacancy in Extra Departmental Post Master of Manjalamoodu Branch Post Office has thus to be filled by the respondents from the dovetailed list maintained by them and the writ petitioner will get her chance when her turn comes. However, it is made clear, the benefits that she would get under the dovetailed list is subject to the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court on the subject. 16. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.