JUDGMENT 1. :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Detail facts of the each individual case will not be necessary to decide these writ petitions because short common questions of law are involved in all these 13 writ petitions. Facts which are necessary for the decision of these writ petitions, in brief, are that the petitioners submitted Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur, and prayed that the respondents may be directed to regularise the services of the applicant-petitioners on the post in Group -C, which is promotional post from posts in Group-D. The basis of claim of the petitioners, before the tribunal was, that all the petitioners were initially appointed on different lower posts falling in Group-D but they are working on a higher posts in Group-C, as ad hoc temporary employees, since last several years ranging from 5 to 25 years, therefore, in view of the circulars issued by the Railway Board dated 11/15.2.91, 13.2.97 and 9.4.97, they are entitled for the regularisation of their services on higher post in Group C. The Tribunal dismissed all the O.As. filed by the petitioners, following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of (1) U.O.I. V/s Moti Lal & Ors. reported in 1996 (33) ATC 304 which was followed by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Aslam Khan v/s U.O.I. which was decided on 30.10.2000. The questions raised before the tribunal were, (1) Whether the employees initially appointed on the lower post but working on a higher post for considerable long period without due selection/promotion can be regularised on higher post ? and (2) Whether the employees are entitled to have their services regularised in the group "C" post in the light of the circulars 1/15.2.91, 13.2.97 and 9.4.1997 ? issued by the Railway Board dated 11/15.2.9f,'The Tribunal in the impugned judgments held that in view of the decision of the Suppreme Court in Moti Lal's case which was followed by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the Aslam's case, applicant-petitioner's cannot claim regularisation in Group "C" post on the basis of long ad-hoc temporary service or on the basis of the said circulars. However, their services were directed to be regularised in their feeder cadre i.e. in Group "D". However, the Tribunal held that applicant's pay is required to be protected. 2. However, their services were directed to be regularised in their feeder cadre i.e. in Group "D". However, the Tribunal held that applicant's pay is required to be protected. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Tribunal committed illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioners ignoring their long tenure of the service on the post ranging from 5 to 25 years falling in categories of Group "C". It is also submitted that, the Tribunal further committed more grave illegality by rejecting the claim of the petitioners by relying upon the judgment of the gull Bench of the Tribunal delivered in the Aslam Khan's case, which itself is based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Moti Lal's case. Moti Lal's case is also based upon the judgment of Apex Court, delivered in the case of (2) Ram Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 390 . According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the judgment delivered in Ram Kumar's case had been overruled by the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court which is reported in (3) 1996(1)SLJ 116 (SC). Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the very basis of rejection of the O.As. of the petitioners by the Tribunal is founded upon the judgments, which do not lay down the correct law. 3. Disputing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioners for regularisation, on the basis of long period of service on the higher post, no more survives in view of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein Supreme Court held that regularisation is not a mode of recruitment, and continuous working for a long period, in absence of any statute or statutory rules, does not by itself confer any right upon the employee to obtain a status to which he is not otherwise entitled to. Another basis of the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the circular issued by the Railway Board dated referred above, also does not survive in view of the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (4) ( 2002(1) RLR 246 =2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) 808) wherein the circular issued by the Railway Board was also considered and the Division Bench rejected the claim of the employees regarding their claim of regularisation on the higher post in Group C. The learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon various judgments of the Division Benches of the Delhi High Court; wherein also the claim of the employees were rejected after considering several judgments of the not only various High Court but also number of the judgments of the Supreme Court. 4. We considered the rival submissions. It appears that the dispute centers round the questions; (1) Whether the employees who are working on exclusively promotional posts for a considerable long period are entitled to get regularisation of their services on the promotional post because of their working for long period on the said post. And (2) Whether the employees are entitled to have their services regularised in the group "C." post in the light of the circulars issued by the Railway Board dated 11/15.2.91, 13.2.97 and 9.4.1997 ? 5. So far as, first question is concerned, it had been considered by the Supreme Court in its various decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (5) Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( AIR 1995 SC 962 ) , held that eligibility and continuous working for howsoever long period should not be permitted to over reach the law. Requirement of rules of selection through Commission cannot be substituted by humane considerations. Law must take its course. In the case of (6) Union of India and another vs. Kishan Gopal Vyas ( 1996(7) SCC 134 , Supreme Court held that any order for absorption and regularisation of a person, not appointed in accordance with the rules, would result in denial of equal opportunity in the matter of employment to the other eligible candidates for public offices. In the case of (6) Union of India and another vs. Kishan Gopal Vyas ( 1996(7) SCC 134 , Supreme Court held that any order for absorption and regularisation of a person, not appointed in accordance with the rules, would result in denial of equal opportunity in the matter of employment to the other eligible candidates for public offices. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mod Lal ( 1996(7) SCC 481 ) considered the judgment delivered in the case of Ram Kumar and held that the persons appointed contrary to the rules directly as casual mates, even though acquiring temporary status by completing requisite length of service, ipso facto are not entitled to regularisation as mates. He can be considered for regularisation in accordance with the rules, obviously on the post for which his services can be regularised but not over the post of promotion. In another case (7) State of M.P. and another vs. the Dharam Bir, reported in (1998) 6 S.C.C. 165 , it has been held: "the plea that the court should have "human approach" and should not disturb a person who has already been working on this post for more than a decade also cannot be accepted as the courts are hardly swayed by emotional appeals. In dispensing justice to the litigating parties, the courts not only go into the merits of the respective cases, they also try to balance the equities so as to do complete justice between them. 'T'hus, the courts always maintain a human approach in the instant case also, this approach has not been departed from. We are fully conscious that the respondents had worked on the post in question for quite a long time but it was only in ad hoc capacity. We are equally conscious that a selected candidate who also possess necessary educational qualification is available. In this situation, if the respondent is allowed to continue on this post merely on the basis of his concept of "human approach", it would be at the cost of a duly selected candidate who would be deprived of employment for which he had striven and had ultimately cleared the selection list of in fact, it is the "human approach" which requires us to prefer the selected candidate over a person who does not possess even the requisite qualification. The courts as also the tribunal have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the rule on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the essential educational qualifications, should allow to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experience. Such order would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution". 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, yet in another case, (8) State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94 , also examined the concept of equality claimed on the basis of benefits given to some one contrary to rules and claim of equality by the person who has not been given the benefit by ignoring the law or rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held : "The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution is positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits." The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the judgment delivered in the case of (9) Gursharan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee reported in (1996) 2 SCC 459 observed that benefit extended to some person in an irregular or illegal manner, cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India by way of writ petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court also took note of the observations given in the case of Gursharan Singh, which are as under: "Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been discrimination." 7. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been discrimination." 7. Hence, the law is now well settled that by mere workin$ on a higher post for howsoever long period, one cannot get right of regularisation over that post for which he is not entitled as per the rules, even on the ground of "acquired experience by working on the post, "equality" or on the ground of "human approach".. Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are not entitled for regularisation of their services on the post in Group "C" on the mere basis of their long service on the post in Group-'C'. 8. Still next question survives because of the reason that the petitioners are claiming benefit of their absorption/regularisation on the post in Group "C" as per the decisions taken by the Railway Administration for which the Railway Administration had issued necessary orders from time to time. It is also submitted that the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India vs. Moti Lal and another reported in 1996(33) ATC 304 is based upon the judgment delivered in the case of Ram Kumar ( AIR 1988 SC 390 ), In fact, Ram Kumar's case was again placed before the Supreme Court on moving Misc. Petition and it was overruled by judgment of the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, which is reported in SLJ 1996(1) SC 116. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal committed illegality in relying upon already overruled judgment. It will be relevant to mention here that Ram Kumar's case was decided by the judgment dated 2.12.1987, which was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Moti Lal reported in AIR 1996 SC 3306 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "Thus it is apparent that a daily wage or casual worker against a particular post when acquires a temporary status having worked against the said post for specified number of days does not acquire a right to be regularised against the said post. He can be considered for regularisation in accordance with the Rules and, therefore, so far as the post of Mate under Railways is concerned, the same has to be filled up by a promotion from the post of Gangman and Keyman in Class N subject to employees passing the trade test. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was not justified in directing regularisation of the respondents as Mates." Even after holding that the view of the Tribunal directing the Railway Authorities to absorb the respondents on regular post as mates was not justified, the Hon'ble Apex Court even then refused to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal by observing as under: "Even though on principle we are in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Goswami, learned Senior counsel appearing for Railway Administration but having taken into account the fact that the respondents were direct]y appointed as Mate though on casual basis and having continuing as much Mates for more than 22 to 25 years it will be wholly inequitable to require them to be regularised against the post of gangman in Class N. In the premises, as aforesaid, we decline to interfere with the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal on equitable ground, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The direction will not be treated as a precedent." 9. In Moti Lal's case, which was decided on 15.2.1996, only earlier decision of Ram Kumar's case was considered which was decided by two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court on 2nd December 1987 and subsequent three Hon'ble Judges decision of the Supreme Court given in the same case was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. It appears that in above same Ram Kumar's case, which was decided on 2nd December 1987 by the Bench of two Hon'ble Judges, a civil misc. petition was filed, which was decided by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of three Hon'ble Judges. In this subsequent larger Bench judgment, reported in 1996(1)S.L.J. 116 (S.C.), Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed the Railway Administration to give effect to the Railway Board's instructions which were issued on 20th January 1985 for regularisation of the services of the employees against Class III Post. It will be just and proper to quote the relevant portion from the said decision, which is as under: "Mr. It will be just and proper to quote the relevant portion from the said decision, which is as under: "Mr. Goburdhan relying upon the Board's instruction issued on 20th January 1985 says that these people have already worked for more than five years and have become entitled for regularisation in class III posts. If that be so, we call upon the Railway administration to give effect to the Boards instructions referred to above and considered claim of 12 persons named below for regularisation as against Class III posts subject to their satisfying the requirements laid down in the Board instructions." (emphasis supplied) The question of entitlement of pension of the employees was also considered by the Supreme Court and in last, it is ordered:- "The decision is beneficial to the employees and we direct that the board's decision may be implemented." 10. A bare perusal of the above judgments referred above (Moti Lal's and Aslam's cases), and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, Durbeen Singh vs Union of India reported in 2002(1) RLR 246 = 2001 (3) WLC 808 ; it is dear that in above cases, subsequent larger Bench's judgment delivered in Ram Kumar's case was not brought to the notice of courts. The subsequent judgment delivered in Ram Kumar's case, though was considered by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in C.W. No.4121/97 Union of India vs. Lekh Raj and others decided 18th May 2002 but the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court proceeded on wrong assumption that Ram Kumar's case was distinguished by the Supreme Court in Moti Lal's case. In fact only earlier judgment of Ram Kumar's case which was decided on 2.12.1987 (Writ petition Nos. 15863-15906 of 1984) was considered and not the larger Bench Decision. This Court is bound by the larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is nobody's case that the circulars have not been issued by the competent authority and it is nobody's case that circulars are not binding upon the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration was fully aware of the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in Ram Kumar's case, still issued the various circulars including the circulars of the year 11/15.2.1991, 13.2.97 and circular dated 9.4.1997, making provision for straightway absorption in skill grade posts. It is relevant to quote para 2007 IREM Vol.-II issued by the Railway Administration: "3. The Railway Administration was fully aware of the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in Ram Kumar's case, still issued the various circulars including the circulars of the year 11/15.2.1991, 13.2.97 and circular dated 9.4.1997, making provision for straightway absorption in skill grade posts. It is relevant to quote para 2007 IREM Vol.-II issued by the Railway Administration: "3. Casual labour engaged in work charged establishment of certain Departments who get promoted to semi-skilled and highly skilled categories due to non-availability of regular departmental candidates and continued to work as casual employees for long period, can straightway be absorbed in regular vacancies in skill grades provided they have passed the requisite trade test, to the extent of 25% of the vacancies reserved for departmental promotion from the unskilled and semiskilled categories. These orders also apply to casual labour who are recruited directly in the skilled categories in work charged establishment after qualifying in the trade test." 11. In replies filed by the respondents, though large number of judgments referred and even quoted but nothing has been said with respect to the explicit plea based on the subsequent larger Bench decision delivered in Ram Kumar's case. As per the reply filed by the respondent, the services of the petitioners cannot be regularised either because of the reason that some of the petitioner's services have already been regularised in their parent cadre or that in view of the Supreme Court's decision given in Moti Lal's case and in view of the larger Bench decision of the tribunal, petitioners cannot seek absorption for regularisation on the post in Group "C". It is admitted case of the respondents that, petitioner's cases were never considered for absorption or regularisation of their services in the light of various circulars which were issued from time to time and in pursuance of which circulars, the Railway Administration itself has regularised services of the employees on the higher post for which the petitioner has placed on record few orders passed by the Railway Administration. Even nothing has been said to explain-why the circulars were issued if are not intended for implementation? Nothing has been said to explain why the circulars were issued, if the Railway administration was of the opinion that services of the employees cannot be regularised in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court? Even nothing has been said to explain-why the circulars were issued if are not intended for implementation? Nothing has been said to explain why the circulars were issued, if the Railway administration was of the opinion that services of the employees cannot be regularised in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court? It has also not been explained whether the circulars are issued to redress the difficulties of the employees in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in earlier judgment of Ram Kumar's case wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed: "for over 10 years, litigation of this type have been coming to the court. About three years back, this court directed a scheme for absorption in Yadav's case (1985 (2) S C C 648) which had been framed and is operative. Casual labour seems to be the requirement of the Railway Administration and cannot be avoided. The Railway establishment manual has made provisions for their protection but implementation is not effective. Several instructions issued by the Railway Board and the Northern Railway headquarters were placed before us to show that the administration is anxious to take appropriate steps to remove the difficulties faced by the casual labour but there is perhaps slackness in enforcing them. We hope and trust that such an unfortunate situation will not arise again and in the event any such allegations coming to the court, obviously the administration will have to be blamed." (emphasis supplied) 12. It is unfortunate that despite above observation of the Apex Court, made in the year 1987, and more than 14 years have passed, the litigation has not come to end. It is true that in view of the decisions referred about the employee cannot claim regularisation merely because they were holding the post for a long period but there appears to be no bar in framing any policy to absorb the employees after considering the difficulties of the employees. Framing of policy for absorption of the existing employees working for very long period is not unknown in service jurisprudence. Allegations of Arbitrariness and choose and pickup in the matter of Regularisation of services of the employees can be avoided of by properly framed scheme. There appears to be no justification for Railway Administration in not complying with their own circulars, which were issued to give benefit to the employees. Allegations of Arbitrariness and choose and pickup in the matter of Regularisation of services of the employees can be avoided of by properly framed scheme. There appears to be no justification for Railway Administration in not complying with their own circulars, which were issued to give benefit to the employees. In recent judgment (10) Gujarat Agriculture University vs Rathod Lbhu Bechar & Others reported in AIR 2001 SC 706 . Hon'ble Supreme Court, not only upheld the claim for regularisation of the employees who completed more than 10 years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar years by ordering relaxation in eligibility clause on the ground that "those working for a period of 10 or more years without any complaint is, by itself a sufficient requisite qualification". The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the scheme framed for absorption of the employees, held that "The Court is cautious in exercising its discretion. On the one hand it has to keep the interest of the workers alive and on the other to see that employer does not become spineless for the lack of funds eroding the very workers interest". Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that "financial viability is no ground to its disentitle claim of workman" as absorption in phased manner itself is a mechanism which takes care of financial difficulties of the employee also. Therefore, even when the employees cannot claim regularisation of their services on a post only on the basis of their long working on the post on which they have not been regularly appointed, can certainly claim and take benefit of the scheme framed by their employer and the employer after framing scheme for absorption of the employees cannot deny the benefit of the scheme to the employees. 13. Therefore, in view of the subsequent judgment of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court given in Ram Kumar's case reported in 1996 (1) S.L.J. 116 (S.C.), writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be allowed, hence allowed. The impugned judgments of the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in Group "C" are set aside. It is held that as per the circulars dated 11/15.2.1991, 13.2.1997 and 9.4.1997, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularisation of their services in Group "C" posts. The impugned judgments of the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in Group "C" are set aside. It is held that as per the circulars dated 11/15.2.1991, 13.2.1997 and 9.4.1997, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularisation of their services in Group "C" posts. It is further made dear that any order of regularisation of the petitioner's services on lower post i.e., in Group "D", if passed after issuance of above referred circulars by the Railway Administration, will not come in way of the petitioners for consideration of their cases for regularisation in accordance with the circulars referred above. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of each individual petitioner, on merits strictly in accordance with the circulars men ti ed above, and if the petitioners are found entitled for the relief, it may bra accorded to them as early as possible. No order as to cost.Petition Allowed. *******