The said OA was dismissed by an Order dated 28.3.1995 in view of the pendency of the criminal case, with an observation that if respondent was exonerated, it will be open to appellants to re engage the respondent.
The representation was accordingly companysidered but rejected on 8.10.2002 on the ground that numbercasual workers were then being appointed.
He gave a representation for reinstatement and grant of temporary status.
The respondent was appointed as a casual employee in the Central Cattle Breeding Farm run by the first respondent.
In 1992, he was arrested in companynection with some criminal case.
As he was number reinstated with companyferment of temporary status, the respondent again approached CAT in OA No.683 of 2002.
The rejection by the tribunal was challenged in WP No.3974 of 2003.
The rejection was again challenged in OA No.950/2002 which was dismissed on 9.1.2003.
He reported back on duty on 28.2.1993.
The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA No.1332/1993.
The second appellant did number allow him to join duty, as he was involved in a criminal case.
That OA was disposed of with a direction to dispose of the representation.
Leave granted.
Heard both the parties.
