WA 368/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BP KATAKEY The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 2nd January, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2091/2007. The appellants claimed to be working as contract labourers under the Lum ding Youth Labour Co-operative Society of the NF Railway, Lumding. The appellants claimed to be entitled to regularization in terms of a sc heme floated by the Railways sometimes in 1978. Their claim was rejected and the matter in this regard stands closed. The Railways then came up with another scheme as mentioned in the letter dated 31st August, 2004 addressed by Mr. PK Sharma, (Adviser) IR to Mr. Shyam K umar, General Manager, Eastern Railways, Kolkata. The appellants say that they are members of the Coal, Ash and Workshop H andling Mazdoor Union and claim the benefit of this scheme. Accordingly, they filed a writ petition before this Court which came to be dismissed by the lea rned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 2nd January, 2008. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellants had come af ter a considerable delay and therefore on the ground of laches the writ petition could not be entertained. We do not think it necessary to enter into the merits of controversy in this regard. We suggested to learned counsel for the Railways that in accordance with the modalities mentioned in the letter dated 31st August, 2004, it may be appropriate that the Secretary of the aforesaid Mazdoor Union is contacted so th at the matter can be proceeded further with and the Railways can satisfy itself of the merits of the claim of each appellant and each and every appellant gets a hearing and a consideration of his claim. Learned counsel for the Railways has very fairly agreed to this suggesti on. Under the circumstances, we direct the Railways to take action in terms of the letter dated 31st August, 2004 (with subsequent modifications if any) as soon as possible. We should not be understood to mean that any condition mentioned in the letter dated 31st August, 2004 (as modified) may be relaxed or waived. If the ap pellants do not satisfy any condition of the letter dated 31st August, 2004 (as modified) their cases may be rejected. No further orders are required to be passed in the matter. The writ appeal is disposed of.