The principle of res judicata barred the petitioners' claim for regularisation, and they could only be replaced by regularly selected employees.

( 1 ) THE present writ petitions have been filed by the 14 casual labourers working at Swatantra Sangram senghralaya, Red Fort, Delhi under the Archaeological survey of India and is directed against order dated 30th december, 2003 passed by the learned Central administrative Tribunal dismissing the original application No. 2426/2003.

( 2 ) BY the impugned order the learned Tribunal dismissed the said original application, inter alia, holding that the same was not maintainable and was barred by principle of res judicata in view of the decision of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 6900/2002 decided vide order dated 6th May, 2002. By this decision, this Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the Archaeological survey of India and had set aside the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 14. 10. 2001 passed in O. A. No. 719/2001 holding that the petitioners herein were not entitled to regularisation under the 1993 scheme was framed by the government of India in view of the decision of the supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. vs. Mohan Pal reported in (2002) Vol-4 SCC 573 wherein it has been held that the 1993 scheme was one time scheme and not an ongoing scheme and was, therefore, applicable only to casual employees who were in employment on the date of commencement of the scheme. The Tribunal has further held that this Court while dismissing W. P. (C) No. 6900/2002 had only permitted and allowed the petitioners herein to move an application before the Tribunal for consideration of other grounds that were raised and argued before the Tribunal in OA no. 719/2001 but were not decided while disposing of the aforesaid O. A.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that the petitioners have been working with the respondent for last several years and, therefore, they were entitled to be regularised in view of the scheme floated by DOPT dated 7th June, 1988, which was/is still in operation. It was further submitted that the petitioners had/have worked as casual labourers for a period of 240 days in a year (206 days in cases of offices observing five days in a week) and, therefore, order of the Tribunal was contrary to law and liable to be set aside. The counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on order dated 25th February, 1997 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA no. 2129/1996 titled Sarjuk Prasad and Anr. vs. Union of india and Anr. It was submitted that in this case, 1993 scheme was held to be an ongoing scheme and the Supreme court has upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal in Civil Appeal Nos. 504-505/98 in its order dated 9th august, 2000. The counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on a memorandum issued by All India institute of Medical Sciences for regularisation of daily wages staff who had completed 240 working days in a year by applying the 1993 scheme.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that the petitioners would be regularised as and when vacancies arise but in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules and the present writ petition was barred under the principle of res judicata.

( 5 ) WE have considered the arguments and gone through the paper book.

( 6 ) THE petitioners had earlier filed OA No. 719/2001 seeking direction that they should be granted temporary status with all consequential benefits in terms of the scheme prepared by DOPT dated 10th September, 1993 on the ground that they had been working for last several years as Museum attendants. The learned Tribunal allowed the said application vide order dated 14th December, 2001 with a direction to the respondent to consider the grant of temporary status with all consequential benefits in terms of the aforesaid scheme within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

( 7 ) THE respondent did not accept the said order and filed W. P. (C) No. 6900/2002 in this Court. This writ petition was allowed and the impugned