(1) LEAVE granted. Heard (2) THE respondent Pradeep Kumar Saxena was engaged as a Typist on daily wages on 5/8/1987 in the North Eastern Railway at Lucknow and was discontinued on 11/3/1988. The respondent made certain representations against the discontinuance of his engagement, on 17/1/1989 and 10/4/1989. It was only in July 1992 that the respondent made an application before the Central Administrative tribunal, Lucknow bench making a grievance against the discontinuance of his engagement as a Typist placing reliance on a decision of the tribunal in Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India. The tribunal accepted the respondents claim and following its decision in Inder Pal Yadav allowed the respondents application directing his regularisation together with consequential benefits. Hence, this appeal by special by the Union of India. (3) IT is obvious that the tribunals decision in Inder Pal Yadav has no application in the present case and that decision cannot support the respondents claim for regularisation. In Inder Pal Yadav case the persons involved had been working as Typists continuously for more than three years, their initial appointment itself having been made against regular posts and they had also been accorded temporary status. None of these conditions were satisfied in the case of the respondent. In fact there is no such appointment order in favour of the respondent which itself is an indication of the casual nature of his engagement. (4) MR Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent attempted to support the tribunals order on the basis that the respondent having worked continuously for more than 120 days, had acquired temporary status in accordance with certain circulars of the Railways which do not speak of the initial appointment being made against any regular post. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the circulars relied on relate only to casual labour employed on open line and not to Typists who do not belong to that category. That apart, we are also of the view that the absence of any foundation or even averment to the effect that the respondents appointment was against any regular post is itself sufficient to distinguish his case and exclude the applicability to him of the decision in Inder Pal Yadav. That apart, we are also of the view that the absence of any foundation or even averment to the effect that the respondents appointment was against any regular post is itself sufficient to distinguish his case and exclude the applicability to him of the decision in Inder Pal Yadav. A perusal of the impugned order made by the tribunal does indicate that the basis of the impugned order is the decision in Inder Pal Yadav which obviously has no application. On the facts of the present case and the particulars relating to the respondent which have been earlier indicated, the respondent had no justified claim for regularisation to the post and that too on an application made several years after his engagement had discontinued. The impugned order made by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent is, therefore, wholly unsupportable. (5) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the tribunal is set aside resulting in dismissal of the respondents application made to the Tribunal, No costs.