JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner admittedly has been engaged as casual labourer in the Estate (Maintenance) Cell, NEHU, Shillong @ 1/30th of the minimum pay scale of Rs. 750-12-870-EB-14-940/- plus DA only for eight hours work a day w.e.f. 08.04.1993 to 31.05.1993 as is clear from Order No. F.13- 16(4)/Estt-1/90 dated 10.05.1993 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Estt), North Eastern Hill University, Shillong. The scheme called, "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993" came into force w.e.f. 01.09.1993. Clause 4 of the Scheme provides that temporary status should be conferred to all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this Scheme and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days a week). 2. Petitioner claims the benefit of the said Scheme which is declined by the University on the ground that he does not satisfy the requirement of having rendered a continuous service of at least one year. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Scheme is a beneficial one that has to be extended even beyond 01.09.1993, similar question has been set at rest by the Honble Apex Court in the judgment dated 29.04.2002 rendered in the case Union of India & Anr. v. Mohan Pal Etc.: Appeal (Civil) 3168 of 2002. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, clause 4 of the Scheme has been taken note of. The said portion of the para wherein clause 4 has been taken note of is advantageous to be quoted: "Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of "temporary" status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. Some of the Central Administrative Tribunals took the view that this is an ongoing Scheme and as and when casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get "temporary" status. We do not think that clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing Scheme. We do not think that clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing Scheme. In order to acquire "temporary" status, the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered a continuous service of at least one year which means that he should have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices observing 5 days a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving "temporary" status to all the casual workers, as and when they complete one year’s continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given "temporary" status and later they are to be absorbed in Group "D" posts." (Emphasis added) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that the benefit of the Scheme can be extended even beyond 01.09.1993 referred to O.M. F.No.49014/3/2014-Estt(C) dated 16.10.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training but same is of no help to the petitioner because as per O.M. casual labourers who had completed one year as on 01.09.1993 who were entitled to regularisation but not regularised, their cases were to be finalised so, as per the O.M. cut off date has not been extended. 5. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that petitioner on the strength of the order of engagement as casual labourer is still continued. That being so, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude him from getting any benefit in pursuance to a scheme, if any, formulated by the Government of India. 6. Petition for the stated reasons is found to be without merit, dismissed accordingly.