ORDER : Instant petition is directed against order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 24.05.2002. 2. The original application was filed by the respondent/employee seeking direction for regularization of his services from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1982 on the post of LDC/Hindi Typist with consequential benefits flowing thereof. 3. Indisputably the facts are that the respondent-employee was initially appointed vide order dated 19.08.1982 on the post of Hindi Typist in the pay scale of Rs.260-400, with admissible allowances. The appointment was considered by the establishment to be temporary and on ad-hoc basis. At one point of time, his services were terminated in 1983 which came to be challenged by the employee in the writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court in 1985 which later on was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as TB No. 550/1996 which came to allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.02.1989 and was affirmed on SLP filed by the petitioner being dismissed and the effect is that respondent-employee is being continued on the same post on minimum of the scale on which he was initially appointed in August, 1992. 4. It came on record that one similar employee Deepak Sardana, who too was ad-hoc appointee filed OA No.558/1993 for seeking direction of regularization on the post of LDC which came to be allowed and his services were regularized on the post of LDC which he was holding in the office of the petitioner and placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Deepak Sardana referred to in para 6 of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and OA filed by the present respondent was allowed with the following direction in para 8 of the judgment of Tribunal which reads ad infra:- "The Original Application is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider regularization of the applicant on the post of LDC w.e.f. his initial appointment on the basis of evaluation of his Confidential Reports for the past five years with consequential benefits. These directions may be complied with within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties to bear their own costs." 5. These directions may be complied with within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties to bear their own costs." 5. This fact has not been controverted by the petitioner that Deepak Sardana who too was appointed on ad-hoc basis his services were regularized in compliance of order of the Tribunal and SLP preferred came to be dismissed but distinction was made that Deepak Sardana was appointed on ad-hoc basis before creation of Staff Selection Commission and since the respondent was appointed after the Staff Selection Commission being established by the petitioner for making recruitment to the post of LDC no parity with Deepak Sardana could have been claimed. 6. This fact has also been noticed by the court that apart from Deepak Sardana in one of the identical case of Shri J.M. Sunthawala SLP was been filed by Union of India of which reference has been made by the petitioner in para (g) of the writ petition and the judgment in the case of Shri J.M. Sunthawala has been challenged before the Apex Court who too was appointed on ad-hoc basis after creation of Staff Selection Commission & taking note thereof when the matter came before the Court on the last date of hearing, this Court vide order dated 2.5.2017 directed the petitioner's counsel to seek instructions and inform about the fate of the identical case of Shri J.M. Sunthawala, in compliance of order of the court, order of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 352/2003 Union of India & Ors. v. J.M. Sunthawala is placed for perusal and that clearly indicates that the SLP preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and in compliance thereof J.M. Sunthawala who was appointed on ad-hoc basis after creation of Staff Selection Commission his services were regularized with consequential benefits flowing thereof vide order dated 11.11.2010 and operative portion whereof reads ad infra:- "We have perused the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court. We find that the orders do not suffer from any infirmity requiring our interference in the matter under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. There is no reason or justification as to why the appellants cannot regularize the services of the respondent-employee after his reinstatement into service pursuant to the orders of Tribunal with all consequential benefits." 7. We find that the orders do not suffer from any infirmity requiring our interference in the matter under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. There is no reason or justification as to why the appellants cannot regularize the services of the respondent-employee after his reinstatement into service pursuant to the orders of Tribunal with all consequential benefits." 7. It has not been controverted that at least J.M. Sunthawala is the similarly situated employee who was appointed on ad-hoc basis after the creation of Staff Selection Commission and SLP preferred against the judgment of the Tribunal 352/2003 has been dismissed and in the given facts & circumstances, the present respondent deserves indulgence to seek regularization in terms of the order of the Tribunal. 8. After we have heard counsel for the parties and taking note of the order of the Tribunal in our considered view in the light of the development which has taken place of which we have made reference, the order of the Tribunal does not need any inference by this Court. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. It is informed that since respondent is working since 1982 continuously on the post of LDC/Hindi Typist, it is expected from the respondent to comply the order of Tribunal in letter and spirit within three months. No cost.