Judgment 1. It appears to the Court after perusing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that no one in the Railway administration is prepared to take responsibility in putting an end to a very minor controversy in the matter relating to a casual labourer. 2. From the order of the Tribunal it is clear that Gorakh Singh, the claimant before the Tribunal, had been working from 1 January 1981 to 1997 when no work was assigned to him. He worked for a period of more than 16 years. The Tribunal found that there was discrimination when another person, one Bashisth Singh, a casual labourer was given a favoured treatment and the claimant Gorakh Singh has been singled out so as not to receive work. Gorakh Singh filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and got the relief that he continues as a casual worker and he should be considered for regularisation. The Railway administration seems to be aggrieved by this direction of the Tribunal. This Court considers this matter as too petty that the railway administration must fight with a casual labourer who admittedly had been engaged for the last 16 years. 3. There is a faint argument which has been given to the Court that the respondent Gorakh Singh had been invited to work without authorisation and casually. In so far as the first aspect is concerned this is a dirt which the railway administration has to sort out within itself. In so far as the second argument is concerned claimant seeks no more than continuation as a casual worker under the establishment code. This is a status for a worker. A foothold to be considered for regularisation in future. 4. Long term appointments particularly of categories of class-4 employees, if they are to be dispended with for two decades, is a matter of concern. The Supreme Court has also expressed in such situations. If there be a fraud or cheating in obtaining an appointment it is another matter. Two persons are responsible. 5. There is no such submission before the Court. In the normal course of administration Gorakh Singh was also permitted to continue as a labourer. The Supreme Court has also expressed in such situations. If there be a fraud or cheating in obtaining an appointment it is another matter. Two persons are responsible. 5. There is no such submission before the Court. In the normal course of administration Gorakh Singh was also permitted to continue as a labourer. Barring the matter relating to Inder Pal Yadav and others versus Union of India and others, 1985(2) S.C.C. 648 , the Supreme Court has also made observations, to the effect, that in the context of casual labourers power cannot be exercised merely on whims and fancies and further that if there is sufficient work and other casual labourers are still to be employed for that work, the casual labourers who have acquired temporary status should not be removed from service. Gorakh Singh was not a stranger to the railways. 6. This writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.