JUDGMENT : Magrey, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal, initially registered as LPA No.7/2019 and subsequently renumbered as LPAOW No.03/2019, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Writ Court in OWP No.429/2018, with further prayer to allow the said writ petition which had been filed by the appellants challenging the Award dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh in Case No.ID No.10/2016, directing the appellants herein to grant temporary status to the respondents herein to be entitled to all the benefits as available to the workmen who were granted temporary status as per the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of 1993 of the Government of India. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the members of the respondent-Association, 37 in all, are stated to have been engaged by the appellants as casual labourers for the discharge of different functions in Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, on contract basis from time to time since 1991. They raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C), Jammu, regarding regularization of their services. The dispute ended into failure on 31.10.2015. Consequently, the Regional Labour Commissioner, Jammu, somewhere around 18.12.2015, made a Report on Failure of Conciliation to Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, for necessary action. The Central Government/Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in turn, vide order dated 29.03.2016, exercising its powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made a Reference of the said dispute, specified in the Schedule appended thereto, for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, Chandigarh, (hereafter, the Tribunal) with direction that the Tribunal shall give its award within a period of three months. The Schedule of the order read as under: “Whether the action of the management of Radio Kashmir, Srinagar representing through its Chief Executive Officer in not regularizing the services of 37 casual workers of Radio Kashmir Srinagar w.e.f. the date of their joining in the department is legal and justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled and from which date?” 3. The respondents herein filed their statement of claim, reiterating their grievance and case, as briefly narrated above. If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled and from which date?” 3. The respondents herein filed their statement of claim, reiterating their grievance and case, as briefly narrated above. The appellants herein in their objections filed thereto, apart from taking a detailed preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Reference on the ground that the dispute was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and, therefore, pleading lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, contested the claim of the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the respondents did not fulfil the criteria prescribed by the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of 1993 of the Government of India (hereinafter, 1993 Scheme). The appellants with their objections appended certain documents, including a photocopy of the list of casual labourers working on job contract basis at Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, signed by Mr. Rafiq Raaz, Station Director, reference to which would be made later in this judgment. 4. So far as the objection taken by the appellants to the maintainability of the Reference before the Tribunal, is concerned, the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Radio v Santosh Kumar, (1998) 3 SCC 237 , overruled the same. 5. As regards the main point of Reference made to it by the Central Government viz. whether the action of the management of Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, in not regularizing the services of 37 casual workers of Radio Kashmir Srinagar with effect from the date of their joining in the department, was legal and justified, the Tribunal held that there was nothing on the file to suggest that respondent management had violated the rules while refusing regular appointment to the workmen, and that, since there is a procedure prescribed by law which is to be followed for making an appointment on permanent basis, the workmen cannot claim regularization of their services only on the basis of their length of service and, as such, the act of the respondent-management in not regularising the services of the casual workers is not illegal and unjustified. However, having recorded such a definite finding on the main point of Reference, the Tribunal, observing that it was not disputed that the workmen were in continuous service of the respondent-management for the last several years as depicted by Annexure A2, proceeded to record as under: “In order to mitigate agony, hardship and uncertainty in the services of the workmen who have been working with the respondent-management uninterruptedly for the last more than 20 years, it is a fit case where the respondent-management be ordered to give temporary status to the workmen as earlier given to some of the casual labourers as per its own case set up in written statement. Though the scheme for grant of temporary status as per Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993, is not in force but independent of that the workmen are to be granted temporary status as envisaged under the said Scheme.” Recording so, the Tribunal answered the Reference and made the direction as quoted hereunder: “Thus, the reference is answered holding that the act of the respondent-management in not regularizing the services of 37 casual workers is not illegal and unjustified. However, the present workers are entitled to get temporary status as was given to other workers. The respondent-management is directed to grant temporary status within one month of the publication of the award and the workmen shall get the temporary status from the date of conferring of the said status on them by the respondent-management and be entitled for all the benefits as available to the workmen who were granted temporary status as per Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993.” 6. The appellants herein challenged the aforesaid Award dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Tribunal in writ petition, OWP No.429/2018, principally, on the ground that the Award had been passed in violation of the 1993 Scheme, and that the directions given by the Tribunal to grant temporary status to the respondents herein were not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its various judgments. 7. The learned Writ Court, relying on and importing passages and quotes from the writings and opinions of famous philosophers, writers like Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson; Lord Carew, CJ; Mr. T. S. Eliot; Mr. 7. The learned Writ Court, relying on and importing passages and quotes from the writings and opinions of famous philosophers, writers like Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson; Lord Carew, CJ; Mr. T. S. Eliot; Mr. Sydney Smith; Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in effect and in essence has laid stress on the need of the State not to cling to same ideas and concepts, and to change for something better. Further, citing and relying on some famous judgments of the English Courts delivered by Lord Denning etc., and, of course, the Supreme Court of India, the learned Single Judge has held that the act of the petitioners not granting and giving respondents the same benefit as had been bestowed to similarly situated persons, violates the constitutional rights guaranteed to respondents, and that the impugned Award has been passed by the Tribunal after taking into consideration all facets of the matter, including the 1993 Scheme as also the pleadings of the parties. The learned Single Judge has, thus, dismissed the writ petition as lacking in merit. The present LPA has been filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. We heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 9. Mr. Rattanpuri, learned counsel, for the appellants, inviting the attention of the Court to the Reference made by the Central Government to the Tribunal and the definite finding recorded by it on the principal clause of the Reference, holding that the action of the respondent-management in not regularising the services of the respondents herein was not illegal and unjustified, it was not within the province or jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make the directions as have been made by it, directing the management to grant temporary status to the respondents etc. He submitted that the direction so passed by the Tribunal is beyond the scope of the Reference made to it by the Central Government. The learned counsel next submitted that out of 37 members of the respondent-Association, only 4 persons were engaged prior to the year 1993; therefore, the 1993 Scheme, being not an ongoing scheme, as laid down by the Supreme Court in UOI v Mohan Pal, (2002) 4 SCC 573 , was not applicable to the respondents. The learned counsel next submitted that out of 37 members of the respondent-Association, only 4 persons were engaged prior to the year 1993; therefore, the 1993 Scheme, being not an ongoing scheme, as laid down by the Supreme Court in UOI v Mohan Pal, (2002) 4 SCC 573 , was not applicable to the respondents. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate this important and crucial fact; as such, the direction made by the Tribunal is in total disregard of the relevant provision of the Scheme. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Writ Court, upholding the aforesaid Award of the Tribunal, suffers from the same illegality, insofar as the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the directions made by the Tribunal in its Award were beyond its jurisdiction and in total disregard of the basic Scheme of 1993. Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that while exercising its discretion, it was not open to the learned Writ Court to grant a relief in favour of the respondents which is not supported by the basic and relevant Rules/Scheme. In this connection, the learned counsel, cited and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Anurag Kumar Singh v State of Uttrakhand, (2016) 9 SCC 426 . It was further sought to be argued that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Reference in question. To buttress this argument, the learned counsel cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers Asn., (2004) 10 SCC 460. Last, but not the least, the learned counsel brought on record a copy of the latest Scheme dated 22.08.2019 promulgated by the Central Government, Department of Personnel & Trainings, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in its decision dated 10.04.2006 in Civil Appeal No.3595-3612/1999, State of Karataka v Uma Devi, providing for regularization of irregular appointments/engagements in Prasar Bharati (All India Radio & Doordarshan), and submitted that the respondents would be considered in terms of the provisions thereof, if they fulfil the conditions prescribed therein. 10. On the other hand, Mr. 10. On the other hand, Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents submitted that the Award has been made in the fact situation of the case and that the same cannot be interfered with, especially so when such Award passed in the peculiar fact situation has been upheld by the learned Writ Court. He further submitted that a relief which is beyond the pleadings cannot be granted by the Court. The learned senior counsel made detailed submissions as to the scope of the Reference made by the Central Government and the nature and scope of the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. To buttress his arguments, Mr. Jan cited and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) Bharat Singh v State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534 , [para 13]; (ii) Calcutta Port Shramik Union v Calcutta River Transport Association, AIR 1988 SC 2168 , [para 10]; (iii) Sadhu Ram v Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 1984 SC 1467 , [paras 3, 4 & 5]; (iv) Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v Hindalco Industries Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 85 , [para 22]; (v) General Manager, ONGC v ONGC Contractual Workers Union, (2008) 12 SCC 275 , [para 15]; (vi) State of Karnataka v M. L. Kesari, 2010(9) SCC 247 , [para 21]. 11. Admittedly, the Tribunal has directed the appellants herein to grant to the respondent/claimants benefit of temporary status under the 1993 Scheme and the Award of the Tribunal containing this direction has been upheld by the learned Writ Court by the impugned judgment. In the context of such facts, the fundamental question involved in the case is whether the 1993 Scheme was and could, at all, be made applicable to the respondent herein? 12. There is no dispute that the Reference to the Tribunal was made by the Central Government pursuant to Report on Failure of Conciliation sent by the Regional Labour Commissioner(C), Jammu, to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide communication No.08(02)/2014/RLC/Jmu dated 18.12.2015. 12. There is no dispute that the Reference to the Tribunal was made by the Central Government pursuant to Report on Failure of Conciliation sent by the Regional Labour Commissioner(C), Jammu, to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide communication No.08(02)/2014/RLC/Jmu dated 18.12.2015. The case of the respondents/claimants represented through their Union before the Labour Commissioner, Jammu, as recorded in the aforesaid Report, has been that they have been rendering services in the Radio Kashmir for more than 15 to 20 years, and that they have been pleading their case for regularization and absorption in the Radio Kashmir as permanent employees with all higher ups from time to time who assured them of regularization. Their further case was that “they had filed a writ petition before the High Court at Srinagar for regularizing their services which writ petition came to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein amongst other things they pleaded for regularization of their services besides prayed for directing the respondents therein to frame a scheme for regularization of services of applicants as was done by the Government of India in terms of Casual Labours (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993”. It is not disclosed before this Court as to what has happened to the petition that was transferred to the CAT. Another important thing is that it becomes manifest from the aforesaid Report on Failure of Conciliation that the respondents herein had prayed for framing a scheme for their regularization as had been done vide the 1993 Scheme. So, in effect and in essence, it becomes axiomatic that the members of the respondent Association/Union knew and were convinced that the 1993 Scheme was not applicable to them; therefore, they had sought a direction in their petition before the High Court/CAT for framing a similar Scheme for their regularization. It is also substantiated thereby that the respondents were always conscious that there was no way out in terms of the prevalent Rules other than framing of a new Scheme for their regularization. These were and are the basic important features of the case of the respondents to be born in mind. It is also substantiated thereby that the respondents were always conscious that there was no way out in terms of the prevalent Rules other than framing of a new Scheme for their regularization. These were and are the basic important features of the case of the respondents to be born in mind. So, obviously, the Reference to the Tribunal on the question – whether the action of the management of Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, in not regularizing the services of 37 casual workers of Radio Kashmir Srinagar w.e.f. the date of their joining in the department was legal and justified and if not, to what relief these workmen were entitled and from which date? – had been made by the Central Government in context of the above basic case of the respondents. 13. Thus, the Tribunal was required to determine one single principal question of Reference i.e., whether the action of the management of Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, in not regularizing the services of the respondents was legal and justified. The other part of the Reference was dependent on the determination of the above principal point of Reference. Meaning thereby, given the frame of the point of Reference, if the principal point was answered in affirmative – i.e., yes, the denial was legal and justified – then the Tribunal would not need to go to the other part of the Reference, having not been conferred jurisdiction to proceed to go into that question. The Tribunal could go to determine answer to the second part of the Reference concerning the relief to be granted to them only if the answer to the first part of the Reference had been in negative, i.e., if the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the action of the management of Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, in not regularizing the services of 37 casual workers of Radio Kashmir Srinagar w.e.f. the date of their joining in the department was illegal and unjustified. 14. The Award made by the Tribunal, in clear, unambiguous and specific terms holds, firstly, that the 1993 Scheme was not in force; and secondly, that the act of the management in not regularising the services of the 37 casual workers was not illegal and unjustified. Holding and recording so, the Reference would stand completely answered and the Tribunal would not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the second part of the Reference. Holding and recording so, the Reference would stand completely answered and the Tribunal would not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the second part of the Reference. Yet the Tribunal has proceeded to direct the appellants herein to grant temporary status to the respondent/claimants. Such direction, apart from being without jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal, not supported by the Scheme, is contrary to the finding recorded by the Tribunal itself that the Scheme was not in force. So, the Award passed by the Tribunal and the directions contained therein are contradictory in terms. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Award was made by the Tribunal and upheld by the learned Writ Court in the peculiar fact situation of the case; it is rather unsupported by the peculiar fact situation of the case. 15. Apart from the fact that the Award of the Tribunal is contradictory in its terms, the fact that the 1993 Scheme was not an ongoing Scheme is borne out from the applicability clause, viz. Clause 3 of the Scheme, which provided that “the scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries/Departments of Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices, on the date of issue of these orders”, as well as from Clause 4 of the Scheme which provided for grant of temporary status on all casual labourers who were in employment on the date of issue of the OM subject to the condition(s) prescribed therein. So, it was clearly mentioned that the Scheme was applicable to the identified casual labourers who were in employment on the date of issue of the Scheme. In fact, the issue is not res integra, inasmuch as it has long since been held by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohan Pal (supra), cited at the Bar and relied upon by Mr. Rattanpuri, learned counsel for the appellants, that the conferment of temporary status was to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. Paras 5 and 6 of the judgment for ready reference are quoted hereunder: “5. The first question is to be decided on the basis of the interpretation of clause 4 of the Scheme. As already noticed, the Scheme came into effect from 1-9-1993. Paras 5 and 6 of the judgment for ready reference are quoted hereunder: “5. The first question is to be decided on the basis of the interpretation of clause 4 of the Scheme. As already noticed, the Scheme came into effect from 1-9-1993. Clause 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows: ‘temporary status.– (1) ‘temporary’ status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days’ week).’ 6. 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. 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 supplied) 16. 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 supplied) 16. So, the judgment of the Supreme Court on the point is crystal clear that the Scheme was applicable to those of the casual labourers who were in employment on the date of its issue and, most importantly, secondly, who had put in a service of at least 240 days after engagement or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a week) in a year prior to the date of issue of the Scheme. So the question of grant of temporary status on a casual worker engaged after the relevant date would not arise. As mentioned above, it had been the case of the respondent-claimants that the Central Government/appellants herein may frame a Scheme on similar lines for their regularization. In fact, it is seen that the Supreme Court, in the judgment supra, also had made an observation that it was upto the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it was found necessary that the casual labourers were to be given ‘temporary’ status and later they were to be absorbed in Group ‘D’ posts. This is indicative of the fact that there was no other scheme, rule or OM prevalent providing for grant of such temporary status on causal labourers. 17. So far as the respondent-claimants herein are concerned, there is a photocopy of the list of casual labourers working on job contract basis at Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, signed by Mr. Rafiq Raaz, Station Director, existing at page 163 of the record of the writ petition no.429/2018. Perusal thereof shows that barring two of them whose date of engagement is shown to be 7/1991 and 4/1992 as would be referred to later in this judgment, none could have fulfilled the criteria prescribed by the 1993 Scheme, having been mostly engaged after coming into force of the 1993 Scheme or, if they had been engaged prior to the date of commencement of the Scheme, having not put in the requisite number of days prescribed under the Scheme, which was a pre-requisite for conferment of the temporary status. That being the factual position, the 1993 Scheme was neither applicable to the respondents herein, nor could the same be made applicable to them by any standards. Consequently, they were not and could not be said or held to be similarly placed with those casual workers fulfilling the conditions of eligibility under the 1993 Scheme who had been conferred the temporary status, and, therefore, it was not legally or otherwise permissible or open for the Tribunal to make a direction to grant temporary status on the respondent-claimants as per the 1993 Scheme, especially when the Tribunal had recorded definite findings, referred to earlier hereinabove. 18. On the same analogy and for the same legal position, the learned Single Judge of this Court has fallen into a grave legal error in holding that the writ petition filed by the appellants herein challenging the aforesaid Award of the Tribunal, lacked in merit, and in dismissing the writ petition, thereby, consequently, upholding the Award of the Tribunal. We may observe here that no amount of views, opinions, philosophical discourses imported from speeches and writings of foreigners can override the basic spirit, object, applicability of a law, rule or scheme and the eligibility clause prescribed therein nor can the same confer jurisdiction on a Tribunal or a Court, including the learned Writ Court, or help in stretching the same beyond what is expressly provided by law. Even the discretion vested in the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not unlimited. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Anurag Kumar Singh v State of Uttrakhand, (2016) 9 SCC 426 , Courts cannot give any direction contrary to the Statute or Rules made thereunder in exercise of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has quoted with approval from the ‘Judicial Discretion (1989)’ by Aharon Barak, that “discretion assumes the freedom to choose among several lawful alternatives. Therefore, discretion does not exist when there is, but one lawful option”. In that view of the matter, there was no discretion left with the learned Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant a relief in favour of the respondents herein to which they were not entitled under the 1993 Scheme or which was not the import of the Reference made to the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, there was no discretion left with the learned Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant a relief in favour of the respondents herein to which they were not entitled under the 1993 Scheme or which was not the import of the Reference made to the Tribunal. Similarly, no amount of vehemence in an argument can help in stretching a law, rule or Scheme beyond a period or cut off date expressly stated therein and/or alter the eligibility criteria prescribed therein. 19. We have considered the judgments supra, cited and referred to at the Bar by Mr. Jan, learned Sr. counsel, for the respondents. We have found them not attracted to the case in context of the fundamental question involved concerning applicability of the 1993 Scheme to the respondents and the frame of the Reference made by the Central Government to the Tribunal. 20. For the above reasons, the Award made by the Tribunal and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court of this Court cannot withstand the test of law. 21. We, however, hastens to add that the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that perusal of the photocopy of the list of casual labourers, signed by Mr. Rafiq Raaz, Station Director, existing at page 163 of the record of the writ petition no.429/2018, suggests that two of the members of the Association, namely, M/s Nazir Ahmad Rather, A&G, shown to have been engaged in 7/1991, and Mohd. Rafiq Baba, Music Section, shown to have been engaged in 4/1992, might have been eligible under the 1993 Scheme. Their full details, like whether they had continued in service and were in employment on the date of issue of the Scheme viz. on 01.09.1993 and had the requisite days of service are not available before the Court, but, apparently, going by the dates/months of their engagement, as recorded in the aforesaid list, they seem to have had put in more than a year’s service as on the date the 1993 Scheme had come into effect, viz on 01.09.1993. These two persons, if not already conferred the temporary status, would need to be considered by the appellants, if they otherwise fulfil the requisite criteria and conditions prescribed in 1993 Scheme on the analogy of similarly placed persons. 22. These two persons, if not already conferred the temporary status, would need to be considered by the appellants, if they otherwise fulfil the requisite criteria and conditions prescribed in 1993 Scheme on the analogy of similarly placed persons. 22. Furthermore, the Prasar Bharti, vide its OM No.03/04/2019-LC dated 22.08.2019 has promulgated a new scheme for regularization of irregular appointments/engagements in Prasar Bharati (All India Radio & Doordarshan) in pursuance of Department of Personnel & Trainings OM No.49019/1/2006-Estt(C) dated 11.12.2006 as per the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v Uma Devi, CA No.3595-3612 of 1999. Learned counsel for the appellants, as already mentioned, produced a copy of the aforesaid Scheme before this Court, stating that the respondents are entitled to be considered and could be so considered under the said Scheme, subject, of course, to the condition if they fulfil the relevant eligibility and other criteria prescribed therein. This Court, however, would not make any direction in that behalf and would leave it to the option of the respondent-claimants to seek implementation thereof vis-à-vis them, if they consider themselves to be eligible thereunder and if they so desire. 23. So far as the present LPA is concerned, we are convinced that there is merit in it, and that the Award dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Tribunal and the impugned judgment of the learned Writ Court are liable to be set aside. 24. This LPA as well as the writ petition, OWP no.429/2018, filed by the appellants, are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned Award of the Tribunal and the judgment of the learned Writ Court are set aside, except to the extent indicated in para 21 hereinabove concerning M/S Nazir Ahmad Rather, A&G, shown to have been engaged in 7/1991, and Mohd. Rafiq Baba, Music Section, shown to have been engaged in 4/1992. The appellants will consider the cases of these two workers and if they are found to be fulfilling all the eligibility criteria under the 1993 Scheme, they shall be granted the temporary status and other benefits retrospectively from the date persons similarly placed were granted such benefits. 25. This also disposes of all the connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any, passed and subsisting shall stand vacated. 26. There shall be no order as to costs.