WPC 5850/2011 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5850/2011 % Date of Decision: August 12, 2011 Shri Bal Kishan & Ors. ....Petitioner Through Ms. Maninder Acharya with Mr. Yashish Chandra, Advocates. VERSUS Union of India & Ors. …..Respondents Through Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER The present writ petition filed by 16 petitioners impugns the order dated 12th May, 2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short) 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were granted temporary status and even if they are not entitled to regularization, the respondent could have continued with their employment after preparing an all India WPC 5850/2011 Page 2 of 3 seniority list. It is submitted that the principle of last to come first to go, has not been adhered to by the respondent. 3. The petitioners have rightly not pressed their regularization in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), 2006(4) SCC 1. It may be noticed that the Tribunal has also recorded that the Original Applications were filed in 2008 whereas the services of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 31st January, 2004. Thus, the plea of limitation was raised, but the respondent did not seriously press the same. 4. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the principle of ‘last to come first to go’ was not followed. The said contention has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners were appointed for specific work at NSG at Manesar. After the work was over, the site was handed over to NSG, Manesar on 31st January, 2004. CPWD carries out operations all over India and, therefore, it is not possible for them to have all India seniority list and accordingly apply the principle of ‘last to come first to go’ on all India basis. WPC 5850/2011 Page 3 of 3 5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE August 12, 2011 kkb