JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants questioning correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (in short CAT).

The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.

3. Respondent filed O.A.No.291 of 2003 before the CAT making a grievance that family pension and other terminal benefits were being denied to her by the present appellant on the ground that her deceased husband was not holding permanent status in service. CAT held that though her deceased husband Durga Lal was not holding a permanent status in service, yet respondent was entitled to the family pension and other benefits by treating him to have been regularized on the date of his death.

4. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that since the respondent has been given compassionate appointment, there was no merit in the writ petition.

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel submitted that there was a scheme in operation and late Durga Lal was not holding permanent status and was only a casual labourer who had acquired temporary status in view of the scheme. Placing reliance on a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 1), it was held that CAT could not have directed regularization and in any event directed grant of family pension.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the deceased late Durga Lal had worked for nearly 20 years and merely because there was no formal order granting him permanent status, it had to be deemed as if late Durga Lal was in regular service. CAT proceeded on the basis that the respondents claim was acceptable with reference to certain circulars applicable to Railways employees and Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in Gita Rani Santra v. Union of India and Ors. (reported in 1997-2001 AT Full Bench judgment page 295) .

7. In order to appreciate rival submissions a few provisions need to be noted.

8. The scheme applicable to employees of appellant No.1 is very specific in its scope of operation. The scheme was issued by the Department of Personnel and Training and the scheme is called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993" (in short the Scheme)". The said scheme is applicable with effect from 1.9.1993. Clause 4 reads as follows:

"4. Temporary status:

(i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employments on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year which indicates any must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5-day week)

(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular group D posts.

(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circle on the basis of availability of work.

(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not, however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for group D posts".

Similarly, Clause 5 so far as relevant reads as follows:

"xxxxxxxx

(v)50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularization".

9. Clause 6 makes the position clear that no benefits other than those specified earlier in the scheme shall be admissible to casual labourers with temporary status. The relevant clause reads as follows:

"No benefits other than those specified above will be admissible to casual lab