( 1 ) ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL (a and e), karnataka, Bangalore and two others have filed this petition questioning the order passed by the central administrative tribunal, Bangalore (for short, 'the tribunal') dated 10th March, 1998 in review application No. 8 of 1998 (Annexure-A) and the order passed in contempt petition No. 40 of 1998, dated 10-11-1998 wherein the petitioners have been directed to comply with the orders passed by the tribunal annexure-b.

( 2 ) FACTS. S. Srinivasan (hereinafter referred to as the respondent') filed o. a. No. 906 of 1996 before the tribunal seeking a writ of mandamus directing the petitioners to re-employ him and to give the benefit of temporary status and all other benefits flowing from conferment of such a status. It was averred in the application that he was employed as a canteen worker in September 1991 in the accountant- general's office canteen, Bangalore and continued to work as such till 15th July, 1996. On 15th of July, 1996 he was orally told not to attend the canteen duties. It was averred that he was continued in the canteen with periodical increase in the rate of daily wage from Rs. 8/- to a daily wage of Rs. 30/ -. No formal order had been issued to him and he had been denied the benefit of casual leave, earned leave etc. He had also produced the certificates in support of his claim, that he had been working as a casual labourer in the canteen. In spite of the representation made by him several times, required pay scale was not given to him.

( 3 ) CENTRAL government had issued an order on 10th of September, 1996 to give required timescale of pay which was also denied to him. The scheme known as 'casual labourers (grant of temporary status and regularisation) scheme' was promulgated and had come into effect from 1-9-1993 and the scheme was 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 the orders. The scheme was not applicable to the casual labourers working in railways, department of telecommunication and postal department, as these departments had their separate schemes. Under the scheme a casual worker was entitled to be conferred with the temporary status. Temporary status was to be conferred on all casual labourers who were in employment on the date of issuance of the o. m. and who had rendered a continuous service of one year. That they must have been engaged for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week ). Conferment of temporary status was to be with reference to the creation/availability of regular group "d" posts. Conferment of temporary status would have entitled to the casual labourer, to certain benefits. On these pleadings the respondent prayed for the relief for re-employment and the conferment of a temporary status.

( 4 ) PETITIONER contested the claim of the respondent and contended that the respondent had not put in continuous service of 240 days and that the respondent was being employed of and on.

( 5 ) THE tribunal prima facie came to the conclusion that the respondent had put in 240 days of continuous service and was in employment on the date the scheme was promulgated. As a consequence thereof tribunal accepted the application and disposed it of with the following directions:"in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the department to consider the case of the applicant for being considered for conferment of temporary status within the Provisions of para 4 (1) of the casual labourers (grant of temporary status and regulation) scheme. If on such consideration, the applicant is found to qualify because of his having served for 240 days, he will have to be reinstated, and further consequences, by way of temporary status, conferment and even regularisation may follow. This exercise may be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs".

(