Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioners have challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 14.3.2008 passed in Original Application No. 795 of 2004, Rakesh Chandra Sharma and others v. Union of India and others, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal has held that case of the appellant was squarely covered by the decision of the High Court, rendered in Writ Petition No. 21577 of 2007, Union of India and others v. CAT, Allahabad.

3. In the aforesaid writ petition the validity and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal impugned in that case was challenged in which the Tribunal after perusal of the records was of the opinion that the matter therein was covered by the decision of the judgment rendered in the aforesaid writ petition No. 21577 of 2007 and that similar controversy in O.A. No. 1111 of 2000 was decided by the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Apex Court wherein it was held that after rendering three years of continuous service, casual labourers with temporary status shall be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees in the Department of Posts for the entitlement of the benefits as are admissible to Group ‘’D” employees on regular basis. After recording the aforesaid findings the Court quashed the impugned orders of recovery dated 31.3.2004, 30.4.2004, 28.5.2004 and 25.6.2004 in the Original Application No. 1111 of 2000 as illegal. The O.A. aforesaid was accordingly allowed and the respondents were directed to continue to pay the bonus to the employees at the rate specified in the impugned orders therein.

4. The facts of this case are that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the writ petition, who were civil employees, having put in three years of continuous satisfactory service were granted temporary status on 29.11.1992 at par with Group ‘’D’ employees by the Central Government w.e.f. 29.11.1989 vide letter No. A/Cont/Paid/91 dated 5.6.1991, issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Budaun in pursuance of communication No. 45-95-187, dated SPB-1, dated 12.4.1991 and communicated vide CPMG, Lucknow letter No. Rectt/R-39/V/5 dated 30.4.1991 by the Director General (Posts).

5. Adhoc bonus was allowed to these temporary status casual labourers (i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 6) by the department at par with regular Group 'D’ since 1992-93 with the ceiling of Rs. 2500/- per month as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication No. 26.11.96-PAP dated 19.9.2000.

6. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were erroneously allowed adhoc bonus at par with Group 'D’ employees. According to him it is clearly indicated in the said communication dated 19.9.2000 that the eligibility ceiling of casual labourers having more than 3 years service, who had been granted temporary status was Rs. 750/-. It is stated that the Ministry of Communication has also clarified that such employees with temporary status are eligible for grant of bonus at the rate applicable to casual labourers only and not at par with regular Group ‘’D’ employees. Therefore, the bonus erroneously paid to these temporary status employees at par with regular Group ‘’D’ employees was erroneously over paid to the tune of Rs. 68,220/-, which the department was liable to recover. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has relied upon paragraph Nos. 8. 9 and 10 of the writ petition in this regard, which reads thus:

“8. That the aforesaid payment of Bonus was pointed out by the Audit Party in Audit I.R. during 4.7.2001 to 17.7.2001 and instructed to recover the amount from the concerned officials. In compliance Audit IR item No. 1, this over payment recovery was started from the officials under Bill from the month of November, 2001 @ Rs. 500/- per month upto January, 2002 and thereafter recovery was stop