(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant and considering the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal within time.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , this application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. We have also heard learned counsel for the parties on merit of the appeal and find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant for the grant of temporary status after having service since 1997 has not been considered in right perspective under prevailing condition under which he was required to be considered.
(3.) THE petitioner -appellant contention was that he had been in ' continuous service of the respondent -B.S.N.L. since 1997 and had completed 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year at the time when he was so required to complete such working and was entitled to transition for temporary status from casual employees in terms of the scheme disclosed in letter dated 2nd April, 2001 which itself has been issued in furtherance of the earlier instruction dated 24th October, 2000 referred to in Annexure 2 and the appellant case has not been considered.