Moreover, whenever they were asked to play music at any function organised by civilians, 20 of the amount received by the respondent authorities from the civilians was paid to the team which had played music.
The Tribunal had observed in its order rejecting the application that the petitioners were number entitled to regularization because the petitioners had number been appointed against any sanctioned post and it was also observed that the petitioners were daily wagers who were paid Rs.
and they were also provided lunch or breakfast on certain days.
They were paid remuneration on daily wages basis and certain amount was paid to them per month as an incentive in addition to certain allowances for haircut, uniform washing etc.
1162/2001 praying for an order to the effect that the respondents be directed to absorb them in one of the Group D Posts.
As they were number being paid a regular pay scale, they had made representations on 22nd May, 2001 and 21st June, 2001.
41579/2002 which has been referred to hereinabove and which has been allowed by the High Court of Madras.
200/ per month as an incentive in addition to certain other perquisites.
The respondent authorities had filed their reply before the Tribunal stating that the petitioners were number entitled to regularization or appointment to Group D posts, for the reason that there was numbersanctioned post and the petitioners were paid from Non Public Fund and there was neither any provision for regularization number there was any sanctioned post to which they companyld be appointed.
The present respondents were petitioners in the petition before the High Court of Madras and, therefore, for the sake of companyvenience, they have been described as petitioners whereas the appellants before this Court were respondents in the High Court and, therefore, they have been described as respondents herein below.
40 per day and Rs.
The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nut shell is as under The petitioners were working on part time basis in Civilian Bandsmen Team at Air Force Station, Tambaram.
41579/2002 by the High Court of Madras, this appeal has been filed by Union of India and its officers, who were respondents in the writ petition.
The said representations had been rejected on 20th September, 2001 and, therefore, the petitioners had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application No.
It was also observed that numbermaterial was placed before the Tribunal to show that the petitioners were performing duties which were similar to those performed by Bandsmen working in the Air Force.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners had preferred Writ Petition No.
Ultimately, after companysidering the facts of the case and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the Tribunal rejected the application by an order dated 10th June, 2002.
At the request of the learned companynsel, the appeal was finally heard.
Some of the petitioners were engaged in 1982 whereas some were engaged in 1992.
Being aggrieved by Judgment and Order dated 26th November, 2007 passed in Writ Petition No.
