Amitava Roy, J.- The judgment and order dated 30.9.2010 rendered by the learned Central Administra­tive Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribu­nal') in O.A. No. 85/2010 is under challenge in the instant petition. 2. We have heard Ms. B. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railways for the petitioners and Mr. P. P. Baruah, Advocate for the respondent. 3. The basic facts necessary for the dis­posal of the instant petition are that the re­spondent was engaged as a substituted Emer­gency Peon also nomenclature as Bunga­low Peon by the petitioners on contractual basis on 23.4.2008 in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/-. Though the engagement was initially for a period of three months, it was extendable on the receipt of certification from his controlling officer. His behaviour with the immediate superiors and working ability hav­ing been certified to be "Very Good" and "regular in attendance" on completion of 120 days of service, he was by order dated 26.8.2008 of the appropriate authority con­ferred temporary status with effect from 21.8.2008 in terms of Para-4-2 of the Mas­ter Circular No. E/205/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON dated 15/18,2.99 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Circu­lar') and was attached to the Divisional Se­curity Officer (DSO), Rangia, NF Railways. The said incumbent was thereafter transferred as Divisional Engineer-II, NF Railways. At the new place of posting he was not entitled to a Bungalow Peon. The new incumbent as DSO, Rangia was posted on temporary ba­sis and, therefore, under the relevant admin­istrative norms, was not entitled to a Bunga­low Peon. According to the petitioners, for want of vacancy the services of the respon­dent were terminated by order dated 31.3.2009 with effect from 30.4.2009. The impugnment of this order termination having been upheld by the learned Tribunal vide the judgment and order impugned herein, the petitioners seek redress. 4. In their written statement before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners in substance while admitting the conferment of temporary status on the respondent with effect from 21.8.2008 under the Circular, pleaded that his services were terminated as the incum­bent as DSO, Rangia with whom he had been attached was transferred to the post of DEM-HJ/Track/RNY and was not eligible to be pro­vided with a Emergency Peon as per the rel­evant Rules. The petitioners contended that his replacement Sri Mrinai Kanli Dey was posted temporarily as DSO, Rangia with ef­fect from 3.3.2009 and as no Emergency Peon was available to a temporary incumbent, the respondent's services were terminated as he had by then not completed one year of ser­vice. According to the petitioners, on the date of termination of the respondent he had worked for only 343 days and the action taken was permissible under the Circular. It is noticeable from the impugned judgment and order that in course of the arguments ad­vanced before the learned Tribunal it was admitted that the respondent's conduct and quality of performance was beyond reproach, 5. The learned Tribunal noticing that the termination of the respondent's service was effected on and from 30.4.2009 i.e. beyond a period of one year from the date of his ap­pointment (23.4.2008) in terms of Para-5 of the Circular, held it (termination of the respon­dent) to be unsustainable in law and on facts. It observed inter alia that the order of termi­nation dated 31.3.2009per se demonstrated the applicability of the Circular to the respon­dent. 6. The learned Standing Counsel, NF Rail­ways has argued that as the Circular having regard to the service profile of the respon­dent was inapplicable to him, he not having completed one year of continuous service on the date of his termination, the learned Tribunal had fallen in error in concluding to the] contrary. In the alternative, she has urged that] as meanwhile the respondent has joined as substituted Emergency Peon on 1.12.2010 accepting the terms and conditions of the said appointment and has also been conferred ternporary status vide Office Order dated 12.5.2011, the impugned judgment and or­der ought to be interfered with. 7. Mr. Baruah has dismissed the plea of inapplicability of the Circular to the respon­dent relying on a specific reference thereto in the order of termination dated 31.3.2009. 8. We have duly considered the pleaded iacts as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. That the respondent had been conferred the temporary status under Para-4-2 of the Circular is evident from the Office order No. EQ/227//RN/E.Peon/138 dated 26.8.2008 of the APO/11/RNY The order of termination dated 31.3.2009, as the same reveals, had been issued in terms of the same Circular. That the respondent had been conferred the temporary status under Para-4-2 of the Circular is evident from the Office order No. EQ/227//RN/E.Peon/138 dated 26.8.2008 of the APO/11/RNY The order of termination dated 31.3.2009, as the same reveals, had been issued in terms of the same Circular. Admittedly, the respondent had been appointed as Emergency Peon on 23.4.2008 and his services have been termi­nated with effect from 30.4.2009, clearly beyond a period of one year. It would be apt at this juncture to extract Para-5 of the Cir­cular which occupies the centre stage of the controversy. "When Emergency Peon does not seek such transfer or the Officer on transfer has no eligi-bi lity to operate E/Peon at the new station where transferred or if the Officer quits N.F. Railway on retirement, death, resignation, transfer to other Railways, deputation etc. his services will be terminated with due notice unless he has rendered one year continuous service. If he has rendered one year service or more, whether con­tinuous or otherwise, he will be retained in the same status against Group-D vacancy in the seniority unit however with eligibility for regularisation in Group-D post only on completion of 3 years service. In case he seeks change of category and change of station, the same can be considered subject to availability of va­cancy and in the new unit he will be eligible for regularisation only on completion of 3 years service taking into account the previous ser­vice rendered at the old station. If he is a regu­lar Group D employee, such transfer to a new station can be only made on his 'own request1 with assignment of bottom seniority." 9. It is apparent from the above extract that the services of a Emergency Peon in an eventuality as it obtains in the present case, can be terminated with due notice unless he has rendered one year continuous service and if he has rendered one year service or more, % whether continuous or otherwise, he would be retained in the same status against Group-D vacancy in the seniority unit, however, with the eligibility for regularisation in a Group-D post only on completion of 3 years service. 10. 10. On a conjoint consideration of the orders of conferment of temporary status on the respondent as well as termination of his ser­vices, we are not in a position to persuade ourselves to hold that the Circular does not apply to him. In that view of the matter, hav­ing regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering in particular the time gap between the date of his appointment and termination, we are of the unhesitant opinion that he is entitled to the benefit of Para-5 thereof (Circular). The ultimate conclusion of the learned Tribunal to this effect is, thus, un­assailable. The fact that the respondent had been offered an assignment as substituted Emergency Peon which he has accepted and that on the completion of 120 days of continuous satisfactory service in that capacity he has been granted temporary status with ef­fect from 31.3.2011, in our view, does not per se dis-entitle him to the benefit of the de­termination made by the learned Tribunal and affirmed by us. The plea of estoppel raised on behalf of the petitioners is unconvincing and unacceptable. 11. In the face of the findings recorded hereinabove the petition, according to us, lacks in substance. It is, thus, dismissed. No costs.