Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J 1 The unsuccessful applicant aggrieved by the order dated 27 4 2011 made in O A No 300 of 2010 and order dated 10 8 2011 in R A No 29 of 2011 in O A No 300 of 2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, is before this Court in the writ petition 2 The issue involved in this writ petition relates to conferment of temporary status and re-fixation of pay 3 The petitioner, who was sponsored through the Employment Exchange, joined in the Postal Department as an outsider Postman in the leave vacancies Since no action was taken to absorb him in the cadre of Group – D to which he was eligible on completion of 240 days of work, citing the case of similarly placed persons in O A Nos 425 of 2006 and 483 of 2008, he filed Original Application seeking for a direction to the authorities to consider his case for grant of temporary status in Postman / Group – D cadre with all service benefits including arrears of pay and allowances 4 The Tribunal, after hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the Original Application holding that the petitioner was engaged as an outsider against leave vacancies as and when required and was not appointed against any sanctioned post As against the said order, the petitioner filed Review Application and the same was also dismissed by the Tribunal Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition 5 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the first respondent Department and perused the records 6 When the matter came up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the order of this Court in W P No 12988 of 2007 and he also produced the copy of the same for out perusal 7 We have gone through he order of the Division Bench of this Court (wherein myself was a member) dated 11 4 2007 in W P No 12988 of 2007 filed by the Union of India as against the order of the Tribunal in O A No 425 of 2006, wherein in paragraph 3, it has been held as follows: “The Tribunal having considered the fact that the the Division Bench of this Court (wherein myself was a member) dated 11 4 2007 in W P No 12988 of 2007 filed by the Union of India as against the order of the Tribunal in O A No 425 of 2006, wherein in paragraph 3, it has been held as follows: “The Tribunal having considered the fact that the first respondent has been continuously working as Outsider-Substitute from 1990 onwards without any break having been selected through Employment Exchange and in view of earlier orders passed in O A No 192 of 2001, dated 26 7 2001 stating that the first respondent is eligible for being considered for selection to Group – D post; the Tribunal ordered for grant of temporary status In fact, the Tribunal has dealt with the issue elaborately by following its earlier decisions Therefore, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal in order to interfere with the same Accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Petition…… ” 8 Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the appeal preferred in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) C C No 2003/2008 as against the order of this Court dated 11 4 2007 passed in W P No 12988 of 2007, was also dismissed 9 Since the issue involved in this matter is covered by the earlier order of this Court in W P No 12988 of 2007, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) C C No 2003/2008, we hold that the order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner cannot be legally sustained, especially when the petitioner is also similarly placed like that of the first respondent in the said writ petition As such, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the order under challenge is set aside The first respondent is directed to extend the benefit of the order dated 11 4 2007 passed in W P No 12988 of 2007, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition referred to above, to the petitioner also No costs