THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATY WRIT PETITION No :7499 of 2001 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Assailing the order dated 18.6.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. Nos. 539 of 1999, the Department filed the present writ petition. The facts in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged as casual labourers in the construction unit of the petitioners. The respondents claimed that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Inderpal Yadav vs. Union of India & Others (1985 SC(L&S) 526), they should be kept in the Live Register and their services should be regularised as and when vacancy arises on the basis of the inclusion of their names in the Live Register. It is also their claim that even though the Construction Organisation has sent their names for inclusion in the Live Register vide letter dated 3.1.1991, the Division has not prepared the Live Register by including their names in the said register. They also approached the Divisional Railway Manager, Waltair seeking for issuance of the list of the casual labourers of the Construction Organisation, who are to be kept in the Live Register vide letter dated 23.3.1992. However, in the meantime, a notification was issued by the department calling for application for regular appointment of staff. The respondents also submitted their applications in pursuance of the same. However, when the authorities started screening all the applicants including the respondents, they objected to the same and requested the authorities to appoint them after subjecting them to medical examination. However, when the request of the respondents was turned down, they filed the aforementioned O.A. before the Tribunal seeking to set aside the selection proceedings drawn up on the basis of the interviews conducted on 28/29-10- 1997, in pursuance of the notification dated 19.8.1997. They also sought for setting aside para-2 of the letter dated 16.6.195 through which certain instructions were issued for re-engagement of casual labourers and for absorption against the vacancies in the Engineering Department. A consequential direction was also sought to re-engage them in Civil Engineering Department of Waltair Division based on the post-81 Live Casual Register of Construction Organisation submitted by CAO(C)/VSKP vide letter dated 11.9.1996 instead of making fresh recruitment. Initially, an interim order was passed by the Tribunal on 8.4.1999 in the said O.A. directing the authorities to keep 20 posts of casual labourers sanctioned under the ELR requisition vacant. Before the Tribunal, the applicants pleaded that they were post –81 casual labourers engaged in Construction Organisation and as per the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra, they should be kept in the Live Register and since their names have also been sent by the Construction Organisation way back in the year 1991 for keeping them in the Live Register, they should be given preference and their cases should be considered for re-engagement. The Tribunal having heard the learned counsel for the respondents and while taking into account the fact that 20 posts have been kept vacant in pursuance of the interim order granted by it, has disposed of the O.A. with the following directions. “i) If the Construction Organisation had recommended their names in the 1991 list for keeping them in Live Register as a post-81 engaged casual labourers and they are eligible for regularisation, then the applicants are to be considered for re- engagement as casual labourers against the 20 vacancies which were ordered to be kept vacant as per the interim order dated 8.4.1999; (ii) The policy decision for re-engagement of casual labourer as stipulated in the letter dated 1.6.1995 and also the Establishment Circular of Serial No. 187/86, will hold good; (iii) The applicants should be examined for their medical fitness and be properly checked for their identity; (iv) As regards their educational qualifications, they should be re-engaged if they possess the educational qualification required for a post 81 engaged casual labourer to be kept on Live Register.” Aggrieved by the said order, the department filed the present writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the department has submitted that the Tribunal passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity to them to file counter in the matter and without taking into account the fact that after 1.1.1981 no casual labourer can be engaged without the prior approval of the General Manager. He further submitted that the Construction Organisation engaged a number of casual labourers, including the respondents even after 1.1.1981 and 1.4.1987 without obtaining necessary approval from the General Manager and in the instant case, since the respondents were engaged as casual labourers subsequent to 1981, they are not entitled for regularisation. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondents were post-81 casual labourers. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondents have been engaged as casual labourers after the year 1981 and their names have also been recommended by the respective construction units for placing them in the live register. Further, even according to the judgment of the Apex Court in Inderpal Yadav’s case, cited supra, the respondents should be kept in the Live Registers even though they do not submit any representation for placing them in the Live Register. In the instant case, even though the names of the respondents were directed to be placed in the Live Register, the authorities did not do so and on the contrary issued a fresh notification. Therefore, the Tribunal, by the impugned order, rightly directed for re-engagement of the respondents as casual labourers, if they fulfilled the eligibility criteria and if they were found medically fit. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 27th September, 2010 ____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY,J pnb