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