IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5230 of 2010 PREM LAL @ PREM LAL RAWAT, son of Sri Supan, resident of village Thepaha, P.O. Ziradai, District Siwan. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur/Hazipur. Now East Central Railway, Hazipur. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, Sonpur, District Saran. Now East Central Railway, Sonpur, Hazipur. ..... Respondents. ----------- 02- 29.3.2010 Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastava for the petitioner, and Mr. Sagir Ahmad for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.4.2007 (Annexure-8), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No.304 of 2001 (Prem Lal alias Prem Lal Rawat Vs. the Union of India and another), whereby the original application preferred by the present writ-petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of laches, and also on the ground that engagement of a person as a casual labour is the prerogative of the employer. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had worked for a total number of 43 days way back in 1987, as a casual labour in the Railways. He was never engaged thereafter. After a lapse of fourteen years, he filed the aforesaid original application seeking direction to the respondent authorities to engage him as a Safaiwala and to regularise him on a group ‘D’ post, mainly on the ground that the authorities had prepared a list on 4.8.1996 from which persons would be engaged as casual labour/substitutes. 2 3. It appears to us, as has rightly been concluded by the learned Tribunal, that the petitioner had worked only for 43 days way back in 1987, which is quite insufficient for the direction prayed for, and does not create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner had worked in 1987, and the original application was filed in 2001. It manifestly suffers from unexplained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. Thirdly, the petitioner seeks to raise his claim on the basis of the aforesaid list of 4.8.1996. No explanation has been offered on behalf of the petitioner as to under which circumstances the list was prepared. It is evident that the same was prepared after a lapse of nine years. There is no knowing as to what kind and category of persons made their way to the list, and whether or not the petitioner qualified to be included in the list. We do not find any error in the impugned order. 3. There is no merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K.Pathak/