O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

It is the case of the applicant that although he continued to work as a casual worker under the Sub-Divisional Office, Phones, Keonjhar since 1994 and his name was enlisted for conferment of temporary status and regularization, yet he having not been regularized despite sincere efforts by making representations and there being no way out, he approached before this Bench praying for direction to the respondents to confer temporary status and regularization.

2. On the other hand, respondents filed their counter opposing and contesting the case of the applicant inter alia stating that a list of 1437 casual labourer were prepared out of which 455 casual labourers were approved in which the name of the applicant finds place at Sl. No. 326. Documents were called from the causal labourers for regularization after verification but the regularization process could not reach its finality due to various litigations filed in different courts interregnum and, that, aSfetcerre ttahery ,d Sectaistieo no f oKf atrhnea tHakona’ balned a optehxe rCso Vusrt. Uinm tah De ecvais,e of AIR 2006 SC 1806, came into effect, the regularization of causal labourer became le