JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.06.1999 (Annex.-1) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') allowing the Original Application No. 963 of 1996 filed by the applicants-opposite parties. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the opposite parties had been employed with the present Petitioners as Casual part time Attendant-cum-Sweeper and Watchman with effect from 10.10.1980 and 9.5.1981 respectively. They had been working for the period the dispensary was opened i.e. six hours a day. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering a case of such employee in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P and T Department Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others issued a direction to frame a scheme for conferment of temporary status on full time casual workers and absorb them in Group-'D' posts. In pursuance thereof, the authority framed the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter called 'the Scheme, 1991) for the purpose. The opposite parties-workmen filed O.A. Nos. 496 and 497 of 1996 before the Tribunal that there cases are not being considered under the Scheme, 1991. The Tribunal disposed of both the applications vide judgment and order dated 15.7.1996 directing the Department to consider their cases for conferment of temporary status and regularisation under the Scheme, 1991. However, representations were turned down by the Petitioners. Thus being aggrieved the opposite parties again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 963 of 1996 which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order. Hence this petition. 3. Ms. Rajashree Bahal, learned Counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in issuing direction for conferment of the temporary status, in spite of the fact that it recorded a finding of fact that the workmen had been working only for six hours a day. Requirement of conferment of such status is that the workmen should work full time i.e. not less than eight hours a day. More so, the direction for regularisation could- not have been given as it was beyond the competence of the Tribunal. At the most the Tribunal could have asked the authorities i.e. present Petitioners to consider the case of the opposite parties/workmen for regularisation. More so, the direction for regularisation could- not have been given as it was beyond the competence of the Tribunal. At the most the Tribunal could have asked the authorities i.e. present Petitioners to consider the case of the opposite parties/workmen for regularisation. Further, heavy reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, ; and Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Others wherein, consideration of the claim for regularisation of casual employees has been deprecated. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that this Court should not adjudicate this matter as if sitting in appeal against the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal who, after examining the entire record of the Department and examining the terms and conditions incorporated in the Scheme of 1991 for the purpose of conferment of temporary status and for regularisation reached the conclusion that the said applicants-opposite parties, who had illegally been deprived of conferment of the temporary status and regularisation, has issued the aforesaid directions. More so, the case of Umadevi (supra) is not attracted for the reason that in the said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has taken note of the fact that the claim of the workmen can be considered only in terms of the scheme or under the provisions of the statutory rules, for the purpose of regularisation and the ratio of the said judgment is that in absence of any statutory rules or scheme framed by the Department or the Government regularisation is not permissible. The law laid down therein does not apply to this case. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In pursuance of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch (supra), the scheme of 1991 was framed. The relevant provisions of the Scheme i.e. Clauses 1 and 2 read as under: 1. 6. In pursuance of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch (supra), the scheme of 1991 was framed. The relevant provisions of the Scheme i.e. Clauses 1 and 2 read as under: 1. 'Temporary Status' would be conferred on the casual labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989 and who continue to be currently employed and have rendered continuous service of at least one year: During the year they must have been engaged for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days' weeks). 2. Such casual workers engaged for full working hours viz. 8 hours including 1/2 hour's lunchtime will be paid at daily rates on the basis of the minimum of the pay scale for a regular Group 'D' official including DA, HRA and CCA." (Emphasis added) Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid scheme that casual workers engaged for full working hours i.e. eight working hours including 1/2 hour's meal time would be entitled for the benefit of the scheme either for conferment of temporary status or for regularisation. The department issued clarification to the to the scheme vide letter dated 17.5.1989 providing that only those Casual Labourers who are engaged for a period of not less than eight hours a day should be described as full time Casual Labourer and the Casual Labourer engaged for a period of less than eight hours a day should be described as part time Casual Labourer. 7. Further, the letter dated 1.3.1993 issued by the authority clarified as under: 1. The Service Book of the Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status is required to be maintained as in the case of temporary Government employees. 2. Temporary status - casual labourers are entitled to increment as per the departmental officials on completion of one year of engagement for 240 days i.e. the increment would be taken into account for calculation of wages w.e.f. 1.11.1990 for the casual labourers conferred with temporary status on 29.11.1989 if they have completed one year of service, at least 240 days. 3. The services of temporary status casual labourers can be dispensed in case of misconduct after giving due opportunity on the lines of those available to regular employees. 4. xxx 5. xxx 6. 3. The services of temporary status casual labourers can be dispensed in case of misconduct after giving due opportunity on the lines of those available to regular employees. 4. xxx 5. xxx 6. Casual labourers engaged in P&T Dispensaries where the full working hours are less than 8 hours daily are not eligible for temporary status. 8. After considering all the above said relevant materials and the letters referred to hereinabove, the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others Vs. Sakkubai and Another came to the conclusion that benefit of the scheme shall be available only to the casual workers who are engaged full time i.e. for eight working hours. The benefit under the said scheme cannot be given to those who are not covered by the said scheme. 9. Unfortunately, it appears that the aforesaid judgment has not been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal and while placing reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the scheme did not make any distinction among the workers working for eight hours or less than eight hours. Rather relied upon the other citations providing for what should be,the minimum wages to the casual labourers working under the department. Thus, as the case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 10. More so, it is the settled legal proposition that the courts and tribunals cannot take upon itself the task of other statutory authorities and can only direct the said authority to do it. Whether a person is entitled for regularisation or not would depend upon the terms of the scheme and the same has to be examined by the Department itself for the simple reason that regularisation requires screening i.e. assessment of performances and service record of the employee and such screening is to be made by ascertaining the conduct of the employee during particular period and whether any disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against him or whether during the period of disciplinary proceeding he has committed any offence for which he is facing the trial etc. As these facts were not before the Tribunal, it was not proper for the Tribunal to issue such direction for regularisation. 11. In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. As these facts were not before the Tribunal, it was not proper for the Tribunal to issue such direction for regularisation. 11. In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another the Apex Court held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised issuing directions straightway as the Courts are required to issue directions for mere consideration of the claim of the employee as straightway direction to appoint a particular person would only put the authority concerned in a piquant situation. The disobedience of the said direction may entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointments etc. may not be warranted as per the Rules. 12. In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and Others Vs. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao and Dr. S. Prasada Rao the Apex Court held that in a case where the relief of regularization is sought by employees working for a long time on ad hoc basis, it is not desirable for the Court to issue direction for regularisation straightway. The proper relief in such cases for issuing direction to the authority concerned to constitute a Selection Committee to consider the matter of regularization of the ad hoc employees as per the Rules for regular appointment for the reason that the regularisation is not automatic, it depends on availability of number vacancies, suitability and eligibility of the ad hoc appointee and particularly as to whether the ad hoc appointee had an eligibility for appointment on the date of initial as ad hoc and while considering the case of regularization, the Rules have to be strictly adhered to as dispensing with the Rules is totally impermissible in law. In certain cases, even the consultation with the Public Service Commission may be required, therefore, such a direction cannot be issued. 13. In Government of Orissa and Another Vs. Hanichal Roy and Another the Supreme Court considered the case wherein the High Court had granted the relaxation of service conditions. The Apex Court held that the Court cannot take upon itself the task of the Statutory Authority and only order which Court could have passed was directing the Government to consider relaxation itself forming an opinion in view of the statutory provisions as to whether the relaxation was required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Issuing such a direction by the Court is illegal and impermissible. Issuing such a direction by the Court is illegal and impermissible. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others, . 14. In Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others a similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observing that inquiry regarding the entitlement of Medical Bill reimbursement cannot be undertaken by the Court and it has to be entrusted to the authority to adjudicate upon after giving opportunity of hearing to the claimant. 15. In Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman and Raman Ltd. and Others the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while considering the case for grant of permits under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings of the Transport Authority, but issuing the direction for grant of permits "was clearly in excess of its powers and jurisdiction." 16. In view of the above, as the judgment of the Tribunal runs counter to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Sakkubai (supra) and direction has been issued by the Tribunal directly to regularise the employees, the petition deserves to be allowed. Petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 28.06.1999 (Annex.-1) in Original Application No. 963 of 1996 is hereby set aside. No costs. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 17. I agree. Final Result : Allowed