Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “ ......to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction nature of the writ directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner Group D Cadre post with effect from 2.1.1985 the date of entering into the services respondents with all monetary and attendant benefits accrued thereon...... ” 2. The petitioner herein received a communication from the second respondent 2.11.1983, calling upon him to appear for an interview on 28.11.1983 for Group before the first respondent and the petitioner herein appeared before the first respondent the appointed day. Again, the petitioner was asked to fill up certain forms, communication sent by the second respondent herein dated 4.8.1984. The petitioner filled up those forms and returned them. Thereafter, by communication dated 1.1.1985 by the first respondent, the petitioner was asked to meet the first respondent, the petitioner was asked to meet the first respondent on 2.1.1985 and on that date onwards, petitioner is working with the first respondent. 3. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that his was considered for the said post, that only after an interview was conducted by the respondent, that he was appointed to the said post due to the transfer of one Vasant from Tuticorin to Madras, who was holding the post permanently and that, as such, made clear that the said post is a sanctioned and permanent post and the petitioner appointed in a permanent vacancy. It seems that unfortunately, the petitioner was as a casual labourer and his services were not regularised. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner herein sent letters to the second and third respondents on 1.9.1985 on 14.11.1986 to regularise his services, that he is working in the first respondent ever since 2.1.1985 discharging all the duties assigned to him, and that though petitioner has been as a casual labourer, the remuneration due to him were paid lump sum. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner was asked to work sanctioned and permanent post in a permanent vacancy, that he is entitled to get the salary and other monetary benefits similar to any other Group ‘D’ employees of the respondent, that the petitioner was denied the monetary benefits like D.A. and other periodical increments on the sole ground that he was treated as a casual labourer such the said action of the respondents infringes Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that the financial resources of the Government is the Chief Funding source for establishment and maintenance of the respondent council, that the entire control is vested with the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, as an authority envisaged under Art.12 of the Constitution, and the petitioner has initially filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench on 19.4.1989. said application was returned by the Tribunal stating that the third respondent ’ s council not notified under Sec. 14 of the Tribunal’s Act and hence it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. In these circumstances the petitioner herein is before me, with the prayer supra. 4. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 26.6.1989. 5. The second respondent herein has filed a counter-affidavit and Mr.R.Shanmugam, learned counsel appears for the second respondent. The facts are not disputed in counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent. What all is stated in the counter- that the petitioner herein has got the appointment as casual labourer purely on temporary basis. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that all appointments arc made only an interview is conducted and that the petitioner cannot claim as of right that he should made permanent on the ground that he was given the appointment after an interview. fact that the petitioner has made representation to regularise the post is not denied counter-affidavit. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that the request of the petitioner could not be considered in his favour since the Government of India had imposed a ban recruitment, that the petitioner has no right to claim D.A. or increment on the payment he is working only as a casual labourer and that no mandamus can be issued as petitioner has no right to insist the respondents to regularise his services. The case respondents is that the petitioner is working only as a casual labourer and that it cannot said that it is in violation of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. Mr.S.Kanniah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been called for an interview on 2.1.1985, that he was appointed as labourer from 2.1.1985 and that his services have not been regularised so far. The counsel further contends that the respondents cannot keep a person as a casual labourer the past four years against the dicta of the Supreme Court as laid down in a catena decisions. The learned counsel also contends that the monetary benefits have been denied the petitioner herein as that of other employees of the respondents, since he has treated as casual labourer ever since he was appointed on 2.1.1985. 7. Per contra, Mr.R.Shanmugham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that since there has been a ban by the Government of India on recruitments, petitioner could not be appointed in the permanent vacancy which was created due transfer of one Vasant Singh. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner a casual labourer and that the application submitted by the petitioner will show that he admits that he is a casual labourer and that the petitioner is still working as a labourer. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments of Mr.S.Kanniah, the learned counsel petitioner and of Mr.R.Shanmugam, the learned counsel for the respondents. 1 am view that the petitioner has been called for an interview and has been asked to work vacancy created due to the transfer of one Vasant Singh, from Tuticorin to Madras. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not been given the order of appointment. It is to be that the petitioner is working from 2.1.1985 as casual labourer with the respondents. answer given by the learned counsel for the respondents for such a state of affairs there is a ban by the Government of India for recruitment of new hands. Though a reference has been made in the counter-affidavit that there is a ban by the Government India no material has been placed before this Court to substantiate that plea that the ban still continues. Whether the said ban is still there or not, I am of the view, that petitioner is entitled to get absorbed in the post for which he is taken in. Whether the said ban is still there or not, I am of the view, that petitioner is entitled to get absorbed in the post for which he is taken in. As such, a direction is issued to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner right from 2.1.1985 in the post to which he was appointed and pay all its attendant benefits which are him. I take this view, because of the decisions of the Supreme Court which support the of the petitioner, i.e., a person cannot be kept as a casual labourer for a long time. other view of the Supreme Court in many cases is that a person who is working particular category is entitled to get all the benefits as that of other persons who are working in the same category. In such circumstances, the writ petition will stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.