ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay) 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the Union of India questioning the Order dated 04.06.2020 passed in O.A.No.486 of 2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad directing the petitioners herein to consider grant of temporary status to the Respondent No.1 and thereafter regularize the services in the eligible cadre keeping in view the letter of the Postal Directorate dated 30.06.2014 and in accordance with law. The parties are described as described in the O.A for easy narration. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition is as follows:- The applicant is qualified in S.S.C., passed the ITI (Electrician) and is fully qualified to be appointed as Electrician. The applicant had registered his name in the Employment Exchange, Vijayawada. 3. While so, the Respondent-Department had intended to fill up the post of contingent Electrician to work under the control of Respondent No.3. In that context, the Employment Exchange has sponsored the name of the applicant along with other candidates and the applicant was selected after due selection process and was appointed on 13.12.1995. 4. As per the appointment, the applicant was initially called upon to work for 6 hours every day in the office. The applicant was being paid proportionate salary based on minimum pay of Group ‘D’ by the respondents. Subsequently, the man hours of the applicant was increased to 7 hours, 7 ½ hours and 8 hours on different dates. The applicant was also granted ad hoc bonus from 2013 to 2018. 5. Though the applicant has been working as casual employee in the Department since 1995, his services were not being regularized and the applicant was not even granted temporary status as was granted to certain employees under the scheme of 1993. Therefore, the applicant filed O.A to declare the inaction of the respondents in not granting temporary status as illegal and consequently to grant the same and regularize the services with consequential benefits. 6. The respondents had filed their reply statement contending that the Government of India vide proceedings GOI, MF, OM No.49014/16/89-Esst.(C) dated 26.02.1990 had imposed a ban of engagement of casual workers for performing duties of Group ‘C’ post. Subsequently, vide Letter No.45-37/91-SPB dated 05.06.1991, the vacancies of casual labourers caused by their absorption in Group ‘D’ posts are not to be filled by recruiting fresh casual labourer. Subsequently, vide Letter No.45-37/91-SPB dated 05.06.1991, the vacancies of casual labourers caused by their absorption in Group ‘D’ posts are not to be filled by recruiting fresh casual labourer. In effect, the appointment of fresh casual labourers was impermissible. It was further stated that the Union of India had formulated a scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme vide GOI, DOP Lr.No.45-95/87-SPB-I dated 12.04.1991. As per the scheme, the temporary status would be conferred on casual labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989 and who had rendered continuous service of at least one year during that year and must have been engaged for a period of 240 days for full 8 hours. 7. Subsequently, the scheme was extended to full time casual labourers recruited after 29.11.1989 and upto 01.09.1993 vide proceedings D.G. (P) Lr.No.66/52/92-SPB I dated 01.11.1995 to 08.11.1995. Thereafter, no extension was granted. 8. According to the respondents, the applicant was appointed as a part-time Electrician in the office of Respondent No.3 vide Letter No.ST-III/31-P/T Staff/95-96 dated 13.12.1995. In the said letter, it was mentioned that the engagement is on a temporary basis and the applicant is liable for termination without assigning any reason. It was specifically stated that the applicant was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor any selection process was undertaken before issuing appointment to the applicant. Since, the appointment of the applicant is not in consonance with the Rules, the question of grant of temporary status to the applicant would not arise. 9. It was further contended that in compliance with the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] guidelines were formulated vide Letter No.66-50/2014-SPB-I dated 30.06.2014 for casual labourers working in the Department of Posts. The request of the applicant to consider this case as per the above guidelines was rejected as there could not be any appointment of casual labourer after the instructions prohibiting their appointment after 1989/1993 and hence the scheme would not be applicable to the applicant. 10. It was further stated that consequent upon implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, the erstwhile Group ‘D’ cadre was upgraded to Group ‘C’ and was re-designated as “Multi Tasking Staff (in short ‘MTS’) cadre”. The recruitment rules were also issued for the Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) vide Gazette Notification dated 28.01.2011. 10. It was further stated that consequent upon implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, the erstwhile Group ‘D’ cadre was upgraded to Group ‘C’ and was re-designated as “Multi Tasking Staff (in short ‘MTS’) cadre”. The recruitment rules were also issued for the Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) vide Gazette Notification dated 28.01.2011. As per the Rules for MTS cadre, the recruitment was distributed into four equal segments with 25% each as: (a) 25% of vacancies for Gramin Dak Sevaks (in short ‘GDS’) according to their seniority-cum-fitness; (b) 25% on the basis of Competitive Examination among GDSs; (c) 25% through regular selection process; and (d) 25% by appointment of Casual Labours, who were conferred temporary status and were appointed on or before 01.09.1993. 11. As the applicant was neither appointed prior to 01.09.1993 nor was granted temporary status is not eligible to be considered for appointment to MTS cadre and as such his post was not regularized. In view of the narration of the above facts, the respondents sought for dismissal of the O.A. After considering the respective contentions the Tribunal passed a very detailed order and in the order had referred to a register maintained as per rule 278 of Posts and Telegraphs Financial Hand Book Vol-I and the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this aspect and directed the respondents to consider the applicant for grant of temporary status as per eligibility and thereafter regularize the services in the eligible cadre as per the letter of the Postal Directorate dated 30.06.2014 among other consequential directions. Hence, the Writ Petition is filed questioning the order of the Tribunal by the Union of India. 12. The learned counsel for the Union of India relied upon the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (referred supra) and Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. Thiru R. Govindaswamy & Ors [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant has been working in the Department for nearly 30 years as of now and it would not be fair to deny him in the temporary status as directed by the Tribunal and consequential regularization. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant has been working in the Department for nearly 30 years as of now and it would not be fair to deny him in the temporary status as directed by the Tribunal and consequential regularization. The learned counsel for the respondents had relied on Nihal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others [(2013) 14 SCC 65] and Judgments in SLP (C) No.15774 of 2006 and SLP (C) Nos.19832- 19838 of 2017 and the Order in W.P.No.17048 of 2000. 14. Considering the respective contentions and the case law, the points that fall for consideration in this Writ Petition are as follows:- a) Whether the respondents are justified in denying the temporary status to the applicant on the basis of his employment in the Department being subsequent to the cut-off date of 01.09.1993 prescribed under the scheme of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1991 for granting temporary status and consequential regularization? b) Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal requires to be interfered with? 15. The points (a) and (b) being interdependent are being answered commonly. The Union of India had formulated Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme in the year 1991 in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the scheme, temporary status would be conferred on casual labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989 and should continue to be currently employed and have rendered continuous service of at least one year. Two fundamental clauses for grant of temporary status are Clauses (1) & (2) thereof. Clauses (1) and (2) are extracted below for ready reference:- “1. ‘Temporary Status’ would be conferred on the casual labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989 and who continue to be currently employed and have rendered continuous service of at least one year; during the year they must have been engaged for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week). 2. Such casual workers engaged for full working hours, viz., 8 hours including ½ hour’s lunch time will be paid at daily rates on the basis of the minimum of the pay scale for a regular Group ‘D’ official including DA, HRA and CCA.” 16. Originally, the Scheme was restricted to only those who have been working as on 29.11.1989. 2. Such casual workers engaged for full working hours, viz., 8 hours including ½ hour’s lunch time will be paid at daily rates on the basis of the minimum of the pay scale for a regular Group ‘D’ official including DA, HRA and CCA.” 16. Originally, the Scheme was restricted to only those who have been working as on 29.11.1989. Subsequently, the scheme was extended to casual labourers recruited after 29.11.1989 and upto 01.09.1993 vide Letter No.66-52/92-SPB-1, dated 01.11.1995 issued by the Government of India, Department of Posts. 17. The entire defense of the Department in not considering the claim of the applicant for grant of temporary status and regularization is that the applicant was employed as part-time Electrician on 13.12.1995 i.e. beyond the cut-off date and the appointment was not against any sanctioned post. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to be considered for grant of temporary status. 18. In this regard, it is to be noted that, after the issuance of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme on 12.04.1991, a clarification was issued vide Letter No.45- 111/90-SPB-1, dated 13.01.1992 wherein, it was clarified that where the work of more than one type is to be performed throughout the year but each type of work does not justify a separate regular employee, a multi-functional post could be created with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance. The possibility of creation of multifunctional posts in offices for discharging the items of work, each of which does not justify a full- time post may be explored in the first instance. In case this is not found possible to entrust, part-time casual hands may be engaged as per the outlines contained in No.49014/16/89-Estt., (C), dated 07.06.1998. The clarification reads as under:- “Clarification (2). – Attention is invited to the Department of Per. & Trg., OM, dated 7-6-1988, as per which engagement of fresh full time casual labourers is not permissible. In the said OM, it has also been made clear that where the work of more than one type is to be performed throughout the year but each type of work does not justify a separate regular employee, a multi-functional post could be created for handling these items with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance. In the said OM, it has also been made clear that where the work of more than one type is to be performed throughout the year but each type of work does not justify a separate regular employee, a multi-functional post could be created for handling these items with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance. The possibility of creation of multifunctional posts in offices for discharging the items of work each of which does not justify a full-time post may be explored in the first instance. In case this is not found possible to entrust, part-time casual hands may be engaged as per the outlines contained in OM, dated 7-6-1988. It is once again reiterated that the decision regarding engagement of fresh part-time casual hands should be taken with care and at a fairly high level so that the provisions of OM, dated 7-6-1988, are not diluted.” [G.I., Dept., of Posts, Lr.No.45-111/90-SPB.I, dated the 13th January, 1992.] 19. As per the clarification, a multifunctional post could be created and a casual labourer, who is useful for more than one type of work, could still be engaged in terms of OM No.49014/16/89-Estt.,(C), dated 07.06.1998. 20. Now, coming to the facts of this case, the post of contingent Helper (Electrical) was sanctioned by the Post Master General, Vijayawada on 31.05.1993 and the same was extended on 06.07.1993 as per the Office Note vide Memo No.EST.31/Elec.Staff/92, dated 29.07.1993. The same reads as under:- “In continuation of this office note of even No. dated 31.5.93 and 6.7.93, Postmaster General, Vijayawada is pleased to agree for increase in the work of the contingent helper (Electrical) in the office of Postmaster General for 4 hours a day to six hours a day with effect from 5.7.93 till further orders including Saturdays and Sunday. The contingent helper should attend the Post Offices on Saturdays and Staff Quarters on Sundays. The continuance of this contingent post is subject to review with reference to the workload and the quality of work performed by the contingent official.” 21. As per the documents filed by the Department, one person by name B. Vinay Kumar was initially appointed as contingent Helper (Electrician) and subsequently the claimant was appointed on 13.12.1995. It is curious to note that the appointment of an Electrician in a Postal Department is indicative of a recurring requirement. As per the documents filed by the Department, one person by name B. Vinay Kumar was initially appointed as contingent Helper (Electrician) and subsequently the claimant was appointed on 13.12.1995. It is curious to note that the appointment of an Electrician in a Postal Department is indicative of a recurring requirement. Apart from being appointed to work as Electrician, the applicant was also designated as “Helper”. This designation is indicative that the applicant was appointed to do the job of ‘Electrician’ as well as ‘Helper’ in the Department. It is here that the educational qualification of the applicant i.e. S.S.C., and ITI (Electrician) comes into consideration and makes it apparent that the applicant was appointed for the dual jobs. 22. In addition, the nature of duties for the applicant are on all days in the week and the claimant was supposed to attend the works in the office on Saturdays and in the official quarters of the Postal Department on Sundays also. The fact that the man hours of the applicant was increased from 6 hours to 8 hours and the fact that the applicant continued in the same job to till date i.e. for nearly 30 years is indicative of the work being perennial in nature. 23. The post of contingent Helper (Electrician) is a post designed for an individual, who had skills to do electrical works and also help in the departmental works can be termed to be a ‘Multifunctional Post’. The clarification referred above permits the creation of multifunctional post with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance. 24. In this case, the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance is to be presumed as the salary was being paid directly to the applicant all these years. Further, as observed by the Tribunal, the entries made in the Register of Sanctioned Establishments is indicative of the prior sanction by the Department in creation of this post. Though, the applicant has been shown as part time Helper/Electrician, this Court considering the man hours, length of service and the two dimensional work of the applicant in the office as well as in the quarters as indicative of post sanctioned by the Department of Posts in concurrence of the Ministry of Finance. Merely because the register described the applicant as part-time Helper, the same is not determinative, as the applicant is working admittedly for 8 hours per day. 25. Merely because the register described the applicant as part-time Helper, the same is not determinative, as the applicant is working admittedly for 8 hours per day. 25. If the man hours were to be calculated even as per the original appointment i.e. 13.12.1995, the applicant was working for 6 hours on all 7 days of the week i.e. 42 hours, in comparison to a regular employee, who was working at the rate of 8 hours per day on the 5 working days of the week i.e. 40 hours only. 26. Though, a plea was taken that there was a bar of appointment of Group ‘C’ posts on casual basis, this has no relevance as the appointment of applicant comes under Group ‘D’ post. The classification is based on the scale of pay and reference may be made to Rule 6 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for the classification. Therefore, the bar to appoint Grade ‘C’ post on casual basis has no relevance to this case. 27. As mentioned above, there was no absolute bar for appointment of Group ‘D’ employees in the Department as long as he satisfies the criteria of multifunctional post. Once, an employee has been engaged in a multifunctional post, this Court is of the opinion that the cut-off date may not be of reliance to such post as the clarification itself permits appointment of such employees. Therefore, it is not open to the Department to deny temporary status and consequential regularization as per the turn of the applicant on the ground that the appointment is beyond the cut-off date. 28. Though these aspects are not specifically pleaded, these facts are apparent from the record and in cases of this nature, a little proactive approach is to be adopted rather than the conventional plead and lead approach. 28. Though these aspects are not specifically pleaded, these facts are apparent from the record and in cases of this nature, a little proactive approach is to be adopted rather than the conventional plead and lead approach. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the contention that finding with regard to “unfair trade practice” was given without there being any pleading in ONGC Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union [ (2015) 6 SCC 494 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 290] held at page 49 as under:- “Even in the absence of plea of an act of unfair labour practice committed by the Corporation against the workmen concerned, the Labour Court/High Court have got the power to record the finding of fact on the basis of the record of the Conciliation Officer to ensure that there shall be effective adjudication of the industrial dispute to achieve industrial peace and harmony in the industry in the larger interest of public, which is the prime object and intendment of the Industrial Disputes Act. This principle of law has been well established in a catena of cases of this Court.” 29. The other way of examining the case is that the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme does not seem to prohibit recruitment of Group ‘D’ Posts in totality. The Clause 17 thereof states as under:- “17. No recruitment from open market for Group D posts except compassionate appointments will be done till casual labourers with requisite qualification are available to fill up the posts in question.” The above clause gives an indication that the casual labourers with specific qualifications can be appointed from the open market, if the already engaged casual laborers do not have those specific skill sets required for the said post. 30. As narrated above, the applicant was appointed as he was having specific skill for the two dimensional post of Electrician and Helper. The appointment of the applicant cannot be said to be in violation of the scheme. Therefore, the cut-off date prescribed in the scheme is not an absolute bar for the applicant for grant of temporary status and consideration of his case for regularization as per the Scheme for employees, who have completed 10 years in terms of the Postal Directorate’s Letter dated 30.06.2014, which was issued in pursuant to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case referred supra. 31. 31. This Court for the above mentioned reasons is not inclined to interfere with the Order of the Tribunal and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.