7. 14.11.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-opposite parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition challenges the common judgment and order dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-1) passed in OA Nos. 511 and 512 of 2016, whereby learned Tribunal has rejected the case of the applicant/petitioner for absorption in the post of Junior Clerk in the work charged establishment with retrospective effect from 31.08.2009. 3. On perusal of record, more particularly the order impugned herein, learned Tribunal in paragraph-8 of its order observed as under:- “8. In the instant case under consideration, it has been admitted by the respondents that in the NMR category, the applicants were senior to the Private Respondents. But clear stand has been in the counter /PWC that as per the work assigned to them in NMR posts, they have been absorbed, i.e., Private Respondents were doing the work of Clerk nature during their NMR period whereas the applicant of O.A. no.512/16 was operating pumps and motors whereas the applicant of O.A. no.512/16 was doing the work of Bill Clerk. In O.A. no.512/16 in the gradation list, the nature of work assigned to the NMR employees has not been mentioned and therefore, the stand taken in counter is to be accepted. In O.A. no.511/16 in the seniority list of NMR, the applicant was engaged as operating pump and motors as mentioned in Col-7 & 11 whereas the Private Resp.No.5 was doing typing and official work, but Resp. no.6 was engaged as operating Pump and Motors and Resp. no.7 was doing official work. However, Private Respondents were more qualified than the applicants. The applicant was only +2 with type writing, whereas Resp. no.6 is B.A. with computer knowledge and type writing. Resp. no.3 is +3 Arts/Electrical in ITI and Resp. No.7 is +3 Arts with computer knowledge. So, in this W.P.(C). No. 1740 of 2010 2 back ground, the stand of the respondents in Parawise Comments that they were brought to work charged establishment as Junior Clerk as per the work assigned to them as NMR seems to be probable. Besides this, the applicants of both the O.As cannot compare themselves with Atulaya Krushna Mishra of O.A. no.1374/09, because Atulya Kumar Mishra approached the Tribunal within few months of his absorption in the post of work charged Khalasi and absorption of Private Respondents in the post of Junior Clerk, but these applicants remained silent and they have approached the Tribunal only after adjudication of O.A.1374/09 on 10.03.15. So, they can be termed as fence sitter. Once they have accepted their posting as work charged khalasi/work charged Bill Clerk from 01.09.2009, they cannot agitate the same after about 7 years of post them as W/C Jr. Clerk which is barred U/s 21 of the A.T. Act, 1985.” However, on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, if still post of Junior Clerk(s) lying vacant, the petitioner may apply to the authority for consideration of his case, which shall be done in accordance with law. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. ..…………………… K.S. JHAVERI (Chief Justice) ……..………………….. K.R. MOHAPATRA (Judge) ss 3