Judgment 1. All that was contended on behalf of the petitioner-Railway administration is that the respondent workman Ram Roop had not worked. In a certiorari action the Court is examining the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. If the argument is that the finding of the Tribunal is incorrect then error manifest or otherwise must be shown. If perversity is a submission, then perversity has to be pleaded. 2. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the Railway administration and having perused the record as presented in the present writ petition, the Court finds that the submission of railway administration is itself perverse. It neither recognises the law, its railway establishment code nor the decision of the Supreme Court and keeps on harping that the workman has not worked. 3. The Tribunal has recorded and placed on record the period during which the workman had worked. Further the Tribunal records that this workman was granted temporary status. Temporary status has a meaning under the railway establishment code. This apart if the periods during which Ram Roop had worked, as given by the Tribunal are put together it by far exceeds days which have been noticed by the Supreme Court in re. Inder Pal Yadav and others vs. Union of India and others, 1985(2) SCC 648 . Three periods are 22.5.1977 to 15.5.1979, 19.11.1979 to 15.5.1981 and 1988 to 1989. During the first period Ram Roop worked for about 726 days, the next for about 542 days and then for about 730 days. According to the Tribunal, if all the periods noticed then Ram Roop worked for about 1998 days. 4. This petition has been filed merely because no official is prepared to take even a petty responsibility to accept the decision of the Tribunal. Record for record, the number of days this workman has worked, there is a statement in the face of administration. Merely because the administration will not shoulder the responsibility and file cases until the Court of last resort to harass the workman, is not administrative justice. 5. If this case had been left pending, its pendency would have harmed a poor lowest class category workman. This is a circumstance which is not to be encour-aged. courts time is also wasted. 6. This petition is frivolous. It needs award of costs at Rs. 5. If this case had been left pending, its pendency would have harmed a poor lowest class category workman. This is a circumstance which is not to be encour-aged. courts time is also wasted. 6. This petition is frivolous. It needs award of costs at Rs. 5,000/-, which are to be deposited before the Bihar State Legal Sevices Authorities Act. In addition Rs. 5000/- is to be credited along with the workmans emoluments when paid next. 7. Dismissed.