JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows : (see page No.8 of the paper book of this O.P.) “1. To set aside the Exhibit P5 Order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.203/2019. 2. To dismiss the Exhibit P1 Original Application No.203/2019 filed by the Respondent before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, holding that the Respondent is not eligible for any of the reliefs claimed in the Exhibit P1 Original Application. 3. To declare that the Respondent is not eligible to get appointed as SLR Workers declared by the Tribunal in Exhibit P5 Impugned Order of the Tribunal. Any other order or direction as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./respondents in the O.A. and Sri.M.V.Thamban, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P./sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. The original applicant (respondent herein) has filed Ext.P1 O.A. No.203/2019 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, with the following prayers (see page Nos.20 and 21 of the paper book): “i. To call for the records leading to Annexure A2 and set aside the same in so far as it rejects the claim of the Applicant for regularization as SLR worker. ii. To direct the Respondents to regularize the service of the Applicant as SLR worker with effect from the date of Annexure A3 dated 16.01.2013 taking note of Annexure A1 Service Certificate and Annexure A14 the list of HR/CLR workers of Irrigation Department who have completed 500 days and 10 years service on 01.01.2011 who are eligible for regularization of service. iii. Any other appropriate Order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. iii. Any other appropriate Order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. The petitioners [State of Kerala and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Administration)] concerned have approached this Court by initiating the instant proceedings seeking the invocation of this Court’s extra ordinary discretionary powers of judicial review and judicial superintendence vested under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, so as to impugn Ext.P5 final order dated 10.10.2019 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, allowing the pleas in O.A.No.203/2019 and directing that the original applicant is entitled to be regularized and included in the Seasonal Labour Roll (SLR), in terms of the scheme framed by the competent authority of the State Government in the Water Resources Department as per Annexure A3 G.O. (MS) No.06/2013/WRD dated 16.01.2013. It is this order at Ext.P5 final order, rendered by the Tribunal in the above O.A., that is under challenge in this Original Petition. 5. The original applicant has been engaged as a Hand Receipt Worker (HR worker) in the Dry Dock workshop, Alappuzha and also the Dredger Sub Division at Ernakulam under the erstwhile Irrigation Department, which comes under the administrative control of the Government in the Water Resources Department. The applicant has been engaged as Hand Receipt (HR) Laborer/worker during various spells for the period from 1995 to 2015 in these institutions. Later, the competent authority of the State Government in the Water Resources Department has issued Annexure A3 G.O.(MS) No.06/2013/WRD dated 16.01.2013, whereby a scheme has been framed for regularization of HR laborers/workers, like the original applicant, as SLR (Seasonal Labour Roll) subject to the conditions to be satisfied in the said G.O. A reading of Annexure A3 G.O. dated 16.01.2013 would clearly indicate that one of the conditions envisaged in paragraph 3(c) on internal page 2 of Annexure A3 G.O. is that HR/CLR workers like the petitioner should have received festival allowances for all the years concerned during the period of work, apart from the other conditions. The 4 conditions proposed as per paragraph No.3 Clauses (a) to (e) of Annexure A3 G.O. are as follows: “(a) The worker should have completed at least 500 days of employment as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011. (b) He/she should have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2011. The 4 conditions proposed as per paragraph No.3 Clauses (a) to (e) of Annexure A3 G.O. are as follows: “(a) The worker should have completed at least 500 days of employment as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011. (b) He/she should have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2011. (c) The worker should have received festival allowances for all the years concerned during the period of work. (d) They should be existing HR/CLR workers as on the date of issuance of Annexure A3 G.O. dated 16.01.2013. (e) The worker should not have exceeded the upper age limit of 58 years as on 01.01.2011.” 6. After considering the various aspects of the matter, the competent authority of the State Government in the Water Resources Department has only stipulated that 4 out of the said 5 conditions alone need be fulfilled for the HR/CLR worker to get the benefit of regularization to be included as SLR. This aspect of the matter is crystal clear from a mere reading of para 9 Clauses (a) to (d) thereof given on internal page No.5 of Annexure A3 G.O.. The 5 conditions stipulated in paragraph No.9 given on page No.5 of Annexure A3 G.O. are as follows: “(a) The HR/CLR worker should have worked at least for 500 days as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011. (b) The worker should have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2011. (c) The worker should be an existing HR/CLR worker presumably meaning thereby that the worker should have been actually working as HR/CLR worker as on the date of issuance of Annexure A3 G.O. dated 16.01.2013. (d) The worker should not have exceeded the upper age of 58 years as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011.” 7. (c) The worker should be an existing HR/CLR worker presumably meaning thereby that the worker should have been actually working as HR/CLR worker as on the date of issuance of Annexure A3 G.O. dated 16.01.2013. (d) The worker should not have exceeded the upper age of 58 years as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011.” 7. Thus a comparison of para No.3 Clauses (a) to (e) given on internal page 2 of Annexure A3 with the conditions actually imposed as paragraph No.9 Clauses (a) to (d) given on internal page 5 of Annexure A3 G.O. would make it clear like the day light that the competent authority of the State Government in the Water Resources Department, after considering the proposal and taking into consideration various relevant aspects of the matter, has consciously decided not to insist on one of the 5 conditions mentioned in paragraph 3 viz., the condition that the worker should have necessarily obtained and received festival allowances for all the years concerned during his period of work. The reason for deleting the condition proposed in para 3(d), is discernible from a mere reading of paragraph No.8 of Annexure A3 G.O., which reads as follows; OTHER LANGUAGE It is mentioned in para No.8 supra that many of the HR/CLR workers, who are otherwise eligible for regularization, may not have actually received the festival allowances for various reasons and that taking into account the recommendations of the expert committee, which had examined the matter, there is no necessity to impose the said condition regarding actual receipt of festival allowances. It appears that though the case of the applicant for regularization in terms of Annexure A3 G.O. has been forwarded to the competent authority of the State Government/ departmental authorities concerned, the same has not been seriously considered, which has impelled him to approach the Tribunal by filing the instant original application, which in turn has led to the rendering of the impugned Ext.P5 final order dated 10.10.2019. Before the Tribunal, the respondents therein/petitioners herein have taken the contention that the original applicant is not eligible and entitled for getting the benefit of regularization as per Annexure A3 G.O. on the ground that he does not have 10 years of continuous service as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011 and there was indeed a break in service as on 01.01.2011 and that he had only 9 years of continuous service and hence he is not eligible. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after meticulous consideration of the various conditions actually imposed in Annexure A3 G.O. has held that the applicant fully fulfills all the 4 conditions stipulated in para No. 9 on internal page No.5 of Annexure A3 G.O. and that instead of the minimum 500 days of work, he has indeed work for more than 710 days for the entire period and that going by the date of birth, he has not attained the upper age limit. It is beyond any dispute that the applicant fulfills all the 4 conditions stipulated in para No.9 of Annexure A3 G.O. and that the only objection of the petitioners herein/respondents is that he does not have 10 years continuous service as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011. The Tribunal has found that such a condition that the incumbent concerned working as HR/CLR worker should necessarily have 10 years of continuous service as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011 is not stipulated anywhere in the operative portion of Annexure A3 G.O. and is a condition, which is unreasonable and unrealistic and goes beyond the various aspects, taking into consideration by the competent authority of the State Government based on the expert study, etc. In that regard the Tribunal is also fully fortified by a series of other orders passed both by the Tribunal as confirmed by this Court, in a series of similar cases. 8……. 9. By Annexure A8 final order dated 09.10.2015 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm)No.945/2014, the Tribunal has overruled a similar objection of the respondents and by placing reliance on earlier final order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1210/2013. It may be pertinent to refer to the reasonings made by the Tribunal in the said O.A.No.1210/2013, which have been quoted in para No.5 of Annexure A8, which read as follows (see page Nos.36 and 37 of the paper book): “5.......... It may be pertinent to refer to the reasonings made by the Tribunal in the said O.A.No.1210/2013, which have been quoted in para No.5 of Annexure A8, which read as follows (see page Nos.36 and 37 of the paper book): “5.......... The conditions mentioned in Annexure A1 for regularization of HR workers have already been quoted by us. Now, the respondents have added one more condition to those conditions to make the workers eligible for regulation, this is, they should have continuous service. We think, the said stipulation is not only irrational but, not authorized by Annexure A1. A person needs to have only 500 days service in a span of ten years between 1/1/2001 and 1/1/2011. It means, in the year 2001 a person can have 250 days service and if he completes 250 days service in 2010, he will be eligible for regularization. But according to the respondents, this 500 days service should be staggered throughout the ten years period. That means, there should be a few days service in every year. We think, the said stipulation is unjustified having regard to the nature of employment of the persons like the applicants. They are called only as and when work is available. So, if a person did not work during a year,, it cannot be said that there is break of service for him. Suppose, there was work and he was called and he did not come for work-then it can be said that there is break of service for an HR worker. The respondents do not have any such case in the reply statement. So, on the ground that during certain years the applicants did not work for a day, regularization cannot be denied to them provided they satisfied the four conditions contained in Annexure A1. Admittedly, the applicants have satisfied all those conditions.” 10. So the Tribunal as per the final order in O.A.No.1210/2013 has held that the said grounds for rejection are unreasonable and arbitrary and do not have any nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved by the Scheme. The said view of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1210/2013 has been accepted and relied on by the Tribunal in Annexure A8 final order rendered on 09.10.2015 in O.A.(Ekm) No.945/2014. The said view of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1210/2013 has been accepted and relied on by the Tribunal in Annexure A8 final order rendered on 09.10.2015 in O.A.(Ekm) No.945/2014. Further it appears that similar views have been reiterated by the Tribunal overruling similar rejection orders of the authorities concerned and thereby the authorities concerned have thereafter accepted the verdicts of the Tribunal and have complied with the directions therein and have ordered for regularization of the incumbents concerned in terms of Annexure A3, as can be seen from the endorsements made in Annexure A14, given on pages 48 to 50, wherein reference has been made to the final orders passed by the Tribunal in the matters as in O.A.No.80/2015, O.A.No.120/2014, O.A.No.714/2014, O.A.No.102/2014 & O.A.No.1525/2013 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in similar cases. Similar views have been reiterated by the Tribunal in matters as in O.A.(Ekm) No.303/2016 and O.A.(Ekm) No.318/2016. The final order rendered by the Tribunal in O.A. (Ekm) No. 303/2016 has been challenged by the petitioners herein by filing O.P.(KAT) No.254/2018 before this Court. So also, the final order rendered by the Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm) No.318/2016 in similar situation has also been challenged by the petitioners herein by filing O.P.(KAT) No.245/2018. A Division Bench of this Court as per separate judgments rendered on 5.07.2018 as well as on 10.07.2018 has dismissed O.P.(KAT) No.245/2018 as well as O.P.(KAT) No.254/2018. A reading of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.07.2018 in O.P.(KAT) No.245/2018 [arising out of O.A.(Ekm) No.318/2016] would clearly indicate that the Division Bench of this Court, after hearing both sides and after meticulous consideration of the various relevant aspects and also taking into consideration the hard realities in the very scheme of engagement of HR (Hand Receipt)/CLR (Casual Labour Roll) workers in Government Departments has noted that there is nothing surprising that there could occur break in service in the engagement of such HR/CLR workers and going by the very nature of the engagement of Casual Labour, it may be seasonal in nature and also depends upon the area of the work where they are engaged. The Division Bench of this Court in both the above said judgments in O.P.(KAT) No.254/2018 as well as O.P.(KAT) No.245/2018 has taken the view that the incumbent concerned has to fulfill all the 4 eligibility conditions stipulated in para 9 of Annexure A3 G.O. and that, apart from the said 4 conditions, the authorities cannot insist that the incumbent concerned should also have 10 years of continuous service as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011. It appears that none of the above said verdicts of the Tribunal as well as that of the Division Bench of this Court as in O.P.(KAT) No.245 of 2018 & O.P.(KAT) No.254 of 2018, etc. have been challenged by the petitioners herein in the manner known to law and the said view taken by the Tribunal and by this Court in a series of cases has thus become prevalent and binding judicial view in the matter. Now the petitioners would place reliance on a subsequent norm imposed as per Ext.P4 G.O.(MS) No.18/2017/WRD dated 07.04.2017 whereby an additional condition has been stipulated to the extent that the HR/CLR workers should also have 10 years of continuous service as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011 and further that in each of those years, the CLR/HR worker should also have worked at least one day in a year. Admittedly, the said additional condition as per Ext.P4 G.O.(MS) No.18/2017/WRD has been introduced for the first time on 07.04.2017, long after the finalization of the norms as per Annexure A3 G.O.(MS) No.06/2013/WRD dated 16.01.2013, which is the regularization scheme with the cut off date of 01.01.2011. 11. After hearing both sides, we are constrained to take the view that as already opined by the Tribunal and by this Court, the said additional conditions are not reasonable and do not have any direct nexus sought to be achieved by the Scheme, going even by the expert study referred to in Annexure A3 G.O. A similar condition was proposed in para No.3 of Annexure A3 G.O. that the HR/CLR workers, apart from fulfilling the abovesaid 4 conditions should also fulfill yet another condition that he/she should have actually received festival allowances for all the years. The said condition has been given up by the Governmental authorities, in view of the discussion in para No.8 of Annexure A3 G.O. and only four conditions have been ultimately imposed and stipulated in para No.9 as can be seen from Clauses (a) to (d) thereof, whereby the 5th condition proposed in para 3 of Annexure A3 has been given a total go by. It appears that since various HR/CLR workers had succeeded before the Tribunal in overruling the objections raised by the petitioners, this additional condition by way of the new Norm as per Ext.P4 G.O. on 07.04.2017, which is about 4 years and 3 months after the introduction of the scheme as per Annexure A3 G.O. dated 16.01.2013. Going by the very nature of the casual and seasonal nature of the employment, it is quite foreseeable that HR/CLR may not get continuous employment on many an occasion due to reasons totally beyond their control and the availability of continuous work may be dependent on various factors including the work site, the nature of the work, etc. Taking into account all these hard realities and taking note of the fact that these are workers, who live by the hard din and arduous nature of work done by their hands, and who contribute to the basic wealth and infrastructure of the State that the competent authority of the State Government has taken a well considered policy view that only the 4 conditions envisaged in para No.9 of Annexure A3 G.O. will alone be insisted. Presumably, it could be only on account of adverse verdicts suffered at the hands of the Tribunal and this Court that the new additional norm as per Ext.P4 G.O. may have been devised. The Tribunal and this Court have only given effect to the very intention and the scheme framed by the Government in Annexure A3 G.O. Negative verdicts need not be seen by the Governmental officers as a question of defeat for them and victory for the labourer. The Tribunal and this Court are only in the realm of judicial review and declaration of legal position is only on the basis of the scheme framed by the Government. The Tribunal and this Court are only in the realm of judicial review and declaration of legal position is only on the basis of the scheme framed by the Government. When the scheme has consciously decided not to impose any conditions like the one now sought to be imposed, though it was earlier proposed, as can be seen from reading of para 3 of Annexure A3 G.O. and the 4 conditions in para No.9 of Annexure A3 alone have been stipulated, knowing fully well the hard realities of the nature of the Seasonal and Casual employment of these workers, it is only to be held that the prescription now proposed to be projected cannot be countenanced as a reasonable prescription. Both the Tribunal and this Court have held that those conditions may not be reasonable or may not have a reasonable nexus to the very objective sought to be achieved by the introduction of Annexure A3 scheme. Hence we are constrained to take the view that the abovesaid contentions of the petitioners based on Ext.P3 G.O. cannot be countenanced. HR/CLR workers like the original applicant have been patiently waiting in the queue to get the benefit, which has been introduced as early as on 15.01.2013. Even now, the applicant has not been able to enjoy the fruits of the same though he had waited for more than 8 long years. 12. We hope and trust that the competent authority of the State Government and the Department would rise upto the occasion and to ensure that justice is accorded to workers like the original applicant at least at this late stage, instead of seeing it through the prism of victory and defeat in adversarial litigative proceedings. The State, as the model employer, is expected to work within the Charter of Promises adumbrated in Part III of the Constitution of India, which lays down the Directive Principles of State Policy and should necessarily take the proactive stand to ensure that justice is accorded to the original applicant without any further delay. In view of the abovesaid reasons, we hold that no grounds have been certainly made out by the petitioners so as to interdict the well-considered view to reconsider the view rendered by the Tribunal in this case. In view of the abovesaid reasons, we hold that no grounds have been certainly made out by the petitioners so as to interdict the well-considered view to reconsider the view rendered by the Tribunal in this case. However, we grant six weeks' time to the petitioners to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P5 final order. With these observations and directions, the above O.P.(KAT) will stand dismissed.