IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11422 of 2010 1. HARISH CHANDRA RAI son of Sukhdeo Rai, resident of village Hakimabad Tada, P.O. Kharaj Jitwarpur, P.S. Samastipur, District Samastipur (Bihar) 2. Ajay Bir Singh son of Sukhdeo Rai 3. Kameshwar Rai son of Ram Balak Singh 4. Md. Hamid son of Md. Abdul Rajak 5. Shiv Shankar Mondal son of Sukhdeo Mondal 6. Ram Sewak Rai son of Sone Lal Rai 7. Kapileshwar Rai son of Kedar Rai 8. Niranjan Kapar son of Nago Kapar 9. Dharmendra Prasad Singh son of R. Mohan Singh 10. Ram Bashistha Yadav son of Ram Gulam Yadav 11. Suman Kumar Singh son of Rajendra Prasad Singh 12. Shashi Bhushan Mishra son of Dinesh Mishra 13. Anant Kumar son of Karn Lal Yadav 14. Surendra Jha son of Kameshwar Jha 15. Shyama Kant Upadhyay son of Narayan Upadhyay 16. Ram Balak Singh son of Hari Nandan Singh All are substitutes, under East Central Railway, Samastipur Division (Operating Branch); Samastipur (Bihar) ......Petitioners Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur 2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur 3. The Dy General Manager (Law), E. C. Railway, BISCOMAUN Tower, Patna 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, E. C. Railway, Samastipur 5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, E. C. Railway, Samastipur 6. The Sr. Divisional Operating Manager, E.C. Railway, Samastipur 7. The Sr. D.F.M., E. C. Railway, Samastipur ........Respondents ----------- 2 22-07-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order under challenge. In a nutshell, the petitioners who are out of engagement since 1991, although they had attained the temporary status, want absorption in a suitable post and for that they have moved Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in the past and now Central 2 Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna which has refused to give any relief to the petitioners by order dated 15-10-2009. From the submissions advanced before us, it appears that out of 68 workmen having temporary status, who had been thrown out of engagement, ultimately 50 persons were found suitable for being absorbed against whatever posts may have been available but 18 persons could not be so absorbed and now 19 years have lapsed. The 16 petitioners now want their absorption on the ground that some persons who were their juniors and had completed lesser number of working days have been absorbed as per earlier selection. A perusal of the difficulties expressed by the respondents before the Tribunal, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, shows that inter alia, it was found that 17 applicants could not be absorbed because they were casual seasonal watermen and the scheme of seasonal watermen was already discontinued prior to 18-2-1998 and hence, no vacancy was available although they had temporary status. 3 Considering all the relevant facts and, particularly, that the petitioners were disengaged long back in the year 1991 and even the scheme under which they were engaged has stood discontinued since 18-2-1998 leading to extinction of whatever vacancy was available for them, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)