1. The applicant in O.A.No.243 of 2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT, for short), Ernakulam Bench has filed this Original Petition aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, dismissing the Original Application. The petitioner claims that he was being engaged in the Public Works Department, Lakshadweep Administration, Cochin from 1992 onwards on daily wages. During 1993-1994, he was engaged as a Driver. It is his contention that he was engaged as a Jeep Driver against a sanctioned post. Though Ext.P1 Scheme was for granting temporary status to workers similarly engaged, he was not granted the benefit of Ext.P1. As on 01.09.1993, the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days. From 15.03.1995 onwards, the petitioner has been working under the 4th Respondent as an NMR Driver, continuously. Even now, he is working as such, without any break in service. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be regularised in service in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court contained in paragraph 53 of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, However, despite submitting a representation seeking regularization, his claim was not considered.

2. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner had approached the CAT seeking appropriate reliefs, by filing O.A. No.243 of 2010. The O.A. was contested by Respondents 2 to 4 by filing a reply statement, which is Ext.P3. The petitioner filed a rejoinder refuting the contentions in the reply statement, which is Ext.P4. However, without properly appreciating the contentions of the petitioner, the CAT dismissed O.A.. No.243 of 2010 by Ext.P5 order. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5.

3. According to Advocate Sri. Rinny Stephen Chamaparambil, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had put forward his claim for regularisation on the basis of the Scheme that came into force on 01.09.1993, providing for the grant of temporary status to Casual Labourers as well as on the basis of the directions of the Supreme Court contained in paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi case. However, the CAT has proceeded to consider the claim of the petitioner only on the basis of the Scheme for the grant of temporary status. Since a cut-off date of 10.09.1993 was stipulated for the application of the Scheme for the grant of temporary status, the petitioner was found to be not entitled to the benefit thereof. The CAT has based its finding on the contention of the Respondents that, the petitioner had been appointed as an NMR Driver only on 15.03.1995. The said finding, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is unsustainable and liable to be interfered with. It is the further contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, the claim put forward by the petitioner on the basis of the direction of the Supreme Court contained in paragraph 53 of the Umadevi (3) case has also been disallowed, holding that the same was time barred. The said finding, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is unsustainable. A number of decisions are also relied upon in support of the above contention. We shall refer to the said decisions at the appropriate stage.

4. Advocate Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel who appears for Respondents 2 to 4 seriously contests the arguments put forward by the counsel for the petitioner. According to learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner having been appointed as an NMR Driver only on 15.03.1995, long after the cut-off date of 10.09.1993 stipulated by the Scheme for the grant of temporary status to casual employees, he was not entitled to claim temporary status. With respect to his claim for the benefit of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi(3) case, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel that the benefit was available only to persons irregularly appointed to a sanctioned post. The petitioner was a mere casual employee, who was not appointed by following