AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application is challenging the order dated 12.02.2016 passed in O.A. No. 891 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, Patna.

3. Since the O.A. has been dismissed and the Tribunal has refused to give any direction for grant of benefit of 3rd M.A.C.P. to the petitioner, the said decision has been assailed through this writ application.

4. The Tribunal after considering the various contentions has crystallized its decision in the following terms which emerges from paragraph-5 of the said decision. The same is reproduced herein for ready reference.

“Heard the parties and considered their submissions/arguments/documents. The facts/ views which emerge are as below:-

(a) It is clear from perusal of memo dated 29.04.1967 (Annexure-A/1) that the applicant was “appointed as Boy Messenger” and that his appointment was clearly against a vacant post and “on permanent basis.” As such, any submission of the applicant, contrary to the fact, is not tenable.

(b) It is also clear from perusal of do