Honble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—By this petition the Union of India and the Commissioner, Income Tax, Allahabad have prayed for setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 28.02.2006 passed in favour of Rakesh Kumar, respondent No. 2.

2. We have heard Sri R.K. Upadhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bipin Behari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Sri Rakesh Kumar was engaged on daily rate as contingent paid employee in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad in July 1994. He continued intermittently as a daily wager until his disengagement on 13.2.1997. He was disengaged by oral order on 13.2.1997. Aggrieved by such disengagement he filed an Original Application No. 502 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondent Assistant Commissioner to re-engage him as casual labour (Generator Operator) with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal vide its order dated 20.3.2001 granted relief to him in the following terms which is quoted below :

“I find in the case before me that the applicant was thrown out from the service without being given order of termination. Although he worked as casual labour but he worked continuously from 1.7.94 to 13.2.97 barring artificial breaks. Such termination is clearly unlawful and cannot be up held. The respondents are, therefore, directed to take back the applicant in service and in case after assessment of his past services, it is not found that his services were satisfactory, he should be given notice before giving the termination order. The applicant is, however, not entitled to any back wages on account of his re-engagement. The respondents shall comply with this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.

There will be no order as to costs.”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal the respondent was allowed to join on daily wage basis where he continued in the same status, however, on 14.2.2002 he was served with a show cause notice on the ground that his work has not been found satisfactory, he does not take interest in performing his duty and does not follow any time schedule. Upon the reply submitted by the petitioner which was found unsatisfactory thereby vide order dated 4.3.2002 he was disengaged on the ground mentioned in the show cause notice.

5. Respondent No.2 aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2002 again approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 364 of 2002. The Central Administrative Tribunal again allowed the claim of the respondent by issuing direction of his reinstatement with all consequential benefits including payment of back wages and direction for regularization vide its impugned order 28.2.2006. The Tribunal also awarded cost on Rs. 3000/- upon the petitioner.

6. The petitioner respondents aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal have preferred this writ petition. This Court by its order dated 19.10.2006 stayed the operation of the judgment of the Tribunal pending filing of pleadings.

7. We have gone through the pleadings and have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Sri R. K. Upadhya, learned counsel submits that the respondent’s engagement was as a daily wager which was not made in compliance of any rules and regulation or after following any selection process. He further submits that his engagement was purely temporary, upon contingency of work and not against any post in the cader and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in law in allowing the respondent to continue in service. It is further submitted that there was no requirement in law for issuing any show cause notice or passing any written termination order for disengaging a daily wager whose appointment is not against any civil post covered by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. He further states that earlier the order of the Tr