Ajit Singh;CJ.:-- 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in T.A. No. 1/2012 whereby the petitioner has been mandated to grant temporary status to the respondent with effect from the date his juniors were granted such status. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the order dated 2.5.2015 by which the Tribunal has dismissed its Review Appeal No. 8/2014. 2. The respondent is contesting for grant of temporary status since 2000. He is working with the petitioner from 16.7.1993 and filed O.A. No. 140/2000 before the Tribunal for a direction to grant him temporary status. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.7.2001 allowed the O.A. and directed the petitioner to grant temporary status to respondent. But, the petitioner instead of granting temporary status, vide order dated 8.3.2004, appointed the respondent as a regular Mazdoor in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-12-5800 PM plus other allowances on an undertaking that he will not claim any further relief. 3. Aggrieved, the respondent made a representation dated 11.10.2004 for grant of temporary status to him with effect from 1.9.1999 at par with his immediate junior Md. Shershah Ali. The respondent also in the representation averred that he was entitled for the relief as directed by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.7.2001. Since nothing was done in favour of the respondent, he again had to file T.A. No. 1/2012 which the Tribunal has allowed by the impugned order with a direction to the petitioner to grant temporary status with all consequential service benefits from the date his junior has been granted such status. The petitioner then filed Review petition, which too, has been dismissed vide order dated 2.5.2015. It is, in this background, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. The petitioner being a government company must act as a model employer. As seen above, the Tribunal had directed the petitioner to grant temporary status to the respondent as far back as in the year 2001. And the petitioner did not challenge that order before any superior forum. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have complied with the order and granted temporary status to the respondent from the date his immediate juniors were granted such status. 5. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.