JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI for short). Also heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.11.2017, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in O.A. No. 040/00139/2016 as well as order dated 09.08.2018, by which the said learned Tribunal had not entertained review application no. 3/2018, on the ground of delay. It may be mentioned that the respondent herein was the applicant before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. In brief, the case of the respondent before the learned Tribunal was that on 18.10.1994, he was appointed as Transmission Executive (Dialect and Translation) (hereinafter referred to as “TrEx D&T” for brevity) in the All India Radio (AIR), Dibrugarh on casual/contract basis. It is projected that by a communication dated 14.07.1999, the Station Director, All India Radio (AIR for short) had informed the Director General of AIR that the Staff Selection Commission, Guwahati had given their no objection to make local recruitment and it was further mentioned that as there are a number of TrEx D&T having requisite qualification and working on casual basis for a number of years, their services could have been regularized. The respondent along with seven others had filed a writ petition, which was numbered as W.P. (C) No. 644(AP)/2001, inter-alia, praying for direction upon the petitioners herein to regularize their service. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 14.11.2003, holding that some of the respondents do not have the requisite qualification of Bachelor’s Degree in Hindi, while others were not even graduates, they were not qualified under the recruitment rules. However, it was provided that as the respondents had already put in more than 10 (ten) years of service, it was desirable that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 herein would consider the case of the respondent and others sympathetically and prepare a scheme for giving some financial consistency and assurance to the respondent and other writ petitioners in the said case and accommodate them in some posts suitable to their qualification and experience. By a communication dated 06.01.2006, the respondent and others were informed that there was no scheme in the AIR for regularization of their services and therefore, the directions for framing a scheme as per the hereinbefore referred judgment and order dated 14.11.2003, could not be complied with.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons had filed four writ petitions, being W.P. Nos. (C) 80(AP)/2006, W.P. (C) 81(AP)/2006, W.P. (C) 82(AP)/2006 and W.P. (C) 85(AP)/2006, to assail the communication dated 06.01.2006. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also preferred a writ appeal against the said judgment and order dated 14.11.2003. The said appeal was initially registered before the Principal Seat and subsequently, the said appeal was transferred to this Bench, where it was re-numbered as WA No. 15(AP)/2006. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by observing that prayer for regularization cannot be considered in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Thereafter, by a communication dated 04.02.2011, the Station Director, AIR informed the Director General of AIR that the respondent and others were engaged as casual worker for short term six day basis and they working in their post without any break against the existing vacancies and that their case deserve to be considered sympathetically as they had rendered service between 15 to 28 years as TrEx D&T without break and adverse remarks. The respondent and others had preferred a Special