JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 29.4.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.332/00091/2016. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Tribunal had proceeded to allow the original application of the first respondent without inviting the petitioners to file counter affidavit. Moreover, learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the relevant Rules, which govern the service conditions of the first respondent. The Rule is called as "The Department of Posts Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010". He has submitted that for direct recruitment, there is a 25% quota of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary Status, therefore, the Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status could not claim their selection beyond their quota only on the ground that they had completed three years service. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents without disputing the fact that the Tribunal had decided the original application without inviting counter affidavit in the matter, has submitted that the similar controversy had been discussed by the Tribunal in a case of Amanullah v. Union of India in Original Application No.155/2012 by taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar matter, the Tribunal has made entitled to the applicant to the benefit of pension. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar matter held that after rendering three years of continuous service with temporary status, the casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees of the Department of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group 'D' employees on regular basis. Learned Tribunal in the case on hand had taken note of the observation of the Supreme Court and decided the matter accordingly. That apart, learned counsel for the first and second respondents has also taken several other pleas, however, regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, particularly that the Tribunal had discussed the matter without inviting counter affidavit, we are of the view that the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal to decide afresh by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Therefore, we set aside the judgment and order dated 29.4.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.332/00091/2016 and restore the Original Application to the record of the Tribunal for its decision afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to file counter affidavit before the Tribunal within one month. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of finally. It is clarified that we have not given any finding on merit of the case.