THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.28157 OF 2011 Dated:18.10.2011 Between: Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others .. Petitioners And D.Konala Rao, Electrician, HSG and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.28157 OF 2011 ORDER: The writ petition by Union of India and four others is against the order dated 29.04.2010 in O.A.No.68 of 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. Be it noted, the petitioners also filed a Review Application being R.A.No.23 of 2010, which was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 17.08.2010. The writ petition is filed against the order in the main O.A. after a lapse of one year six months without explaining the delay. Be that as it may, even on merits, the writ petition is wholly misconceived as briefly indicated above. The respondents 1 to 8 herein were appointed as Casual Labour. The Government of India vide their letter dated 10.09.1953 ordered regularization of such casual employees, subject to fulfilling certain conditions. Accordingly, the services of the respondents were regularized. It appears, similarly situated employees/Casual Labour filed O.A.No.672 of 2007 seeking a declaration that they would be entitled to count past casual service for the purpose of Assured Career Progressive (ACP) scheme as per Government of India, Office Memorandum, dated 09.08.1999. The Tribunal allowed the same. Therefore, the respondents also filed O.A.No.68 of 2009 seeking a declaration that they are entitled to count their past casual service for the purpose of ACP Scheme. Following their order in O.A.No.672 of 2007, the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. As noticed supra, the petitioners herein filed Review Application mainly contending that the earlier order of the Tribunal is distinguishable and it has no application to the respondents. The plea was rejected by the well considered order. In this writ petition, it is mainly contended that ACP Scheme will be available only if no regular promotion is given to an employee and as the respondents were given the benefit of regularization, they would not be entitled to claim past service. We are afraid, the submission is misconceived. There is no dispute that all the respondents have been working as casual employees in the office of the Chief Engineering (Navy), Station Road, Visakhapatnam, for a period from 1972 to 1983 and in MES from 1983 to 2007 continuously. It was only thereafter in 2006 their services were regularized. If they are not given the benefit of past casual service, they would not be eligible to ACP. Denial of part service, therefore would be arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 18.10.2011 KH