690, 707, 722 and 773 of 1992 and the order dated 16 9 1993 passed in Review Applications Nos.
Their claim for regularisation was companysidered on the basis of the scheme numberified vide OM dated 9 6 1992 but they were found ineligible on account of having crossed the age limit even after grant of relaxation as per the provisions companytained in the scheme.
By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has given direction for regularisation of the respondents by giving the relaxation in the upper age limit by treating the minimum period of 40 days for the calendar year 1989 and numberperiod for the calendar year 1990 for such of the Casual Staff Artistes who were recruited prior to 1988 and were number assigned work in the calendar years 1988 and 1989 in pursuance of the numbere dated 26 5 1989 sic .
The said scheme has been revised by OM dated 17 3 1994 and OM dated 5 6 1994.
In accordance with the said direction given by the Tribunal, the Central Government framed a scheme for regularisation which has been approved by the Tribunal by its order dated 14 2 1992 passed in OA No.
At the time when Respondents 1 to 5 were first engaged, the upper age limit under the relevant recruitment rules was 30 years and it was 25 years when Respondent 6 was first engaged.
By order dated 8 2 1991, passed in OA No.
These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal dated 28 6 1993 in OAs Nos.
894 of 1990, the Tribunal had directed the Union of India to formulate and implement a scheme of regularisation of Casual Artistes who had done 120 days of casual service.
84 to 87 of 1993.
The respondents are engaged as Production Assistants Floor Assistants in the Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad on casual basis.
They are seeking regularisation on the post of Production Assistant Floor Assistant.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
563 of 1996.
