THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.6665 of 2011 ORDER (Per Sri Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioners, who were engaged as casual labour for some time in the respondents-organization, filed O.A.No.1432 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) seeking to declare the action of the respondents in discontinuing their services from 1st June, 2002 without any notice and without assigning any reasons and for not considering their representation, dated 01.02.2003, as illegal and arbitrary. Through order, dated 25.03.2004, the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. directing the respondents to dispose of the said representation. Accordingly, the respondents disposed of the said representation vide letters, dated 09.07.2004, rejecting their case stating that there are no records showing that they have worked from June, 2001 to May, 2002 at CRR exchange and they were engaged casually or on part-time basis. Seeking to set aside the said letters, the petitioners filed W.P.No.17191 of 2004 before this Court. The said writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction and the same was numbered as T.A.No.77 of 2010. By order dated 18.11.2010, the Tribunal dismissed the said T.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record. 3. The respondents had specifically stated in the counters filed before the Tribunal that the engagement of casual labour and their disengagement is purely on the basis of availability of work and it does not constitute retrenchment and that the petitioners were engaged purely on hourly basis. Further, the Tribunal after considering the matter in detail in O.A.No.1432 of 2003, observed that as the petitioners are not working in the respondents- organization and they have been disengaged from the services in 2002, their case for regularization does not arise, and directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Tribunal, the respondents disposed of the said representation by rejecting the request of the petitioners for regularization of their services, vide letters dated 09.07.2004, a perusal of which also shows that the petitioners were engaged for some specific works on hourly contract basis and no record is available about the work done by them from June, 2001 to May, 2002. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:16.03.2011 sj