JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Goel, J. Identical questions of the law and fact are involved in all these writ petitions. AS such, they have been taken up for disposal together. Petitioner Surjeet Kumar in CWP No. 831 of 2002, was engaged as casual paid labourer on and with effect from 14.7.1988. He claims to be working as a clerk right tom day one and with a view to support his this claim, he placed reliance on to annexure P-1, dated 12th February, 1988, issued by Colonel S. Sahadevan No.1, SEC 507, SS&TC (GREE), C/O APO. For ready reference, it is extracted hereinbelow:- "NAME OF CPL FRAWARD 1. Surjeet Kumar son of Shri Narad Ram village and Post Office Jallugran, Tehsil and District Kullu (H.P.) is working with this Section as CPL since 14th July, 1388. He is deployed in the office of NOI Section of 507552 TC. He is dealing with ill correspondence pertaining to this Section i.e E-3 and E-4 matters. He is well persed in official correspondence, stores accounting procedure and is a very Hardworking individual. The performance of this CPL is better than a Trained Clerk and he is also able to lead to work an office independently. Even though, he is a causal paid/low paid employee on daily basis, he take deep interest in his assigned 3b and do the work very satisfactory. He is very loyal, sincere and an outstanding worker, recommend him for receipt of CE,s award for the year 1998. Sd/- Co. III (S. Sahadevan) No.1, SEC 507, SS&TC' 2. In this writ petition he has prayed for regularisation of his service and also give him the benefit attached to the post of clerk from 14.7.1989, because he is forking as such continuously till date. 3. Petitioner Bhed Singh in CWP No. 818 of 2002, was engaged as a casual aid labourer on and with effect from 13.3.1999 and his services were dispensed it on 21.1.2002. 4. Petitioner Parkash Chand in CWP No. 817 of 2002, was engaged as a casual paid labourer on and with effect from 15.11.1994 and his services were also dispensed with on 21.1.2002. 5. It may be appropriate in the context of all the three petitioners that they ed writ petitions earlier also when their services were dispensed with on 21.1.2002, the order of the court, they were ordered to be re-engaged. 5. It may be appropriate in the context of all the three petitioners that they ed writ petitions earlier also when their services were dispensed with on 21.1.2002, the order of the court, they were ordered to be re-engaged. It was not disputed behalf of the parties that all the petitioners in these writ petitions continue to be employed by the respondents, but as casual paid labourers till date. In case of Surjeet mar, it was reiterated with vehemence' that respondents are extracting "Begar" in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India. As according to him, he is engaged pa casual paid labourer, but he is being forced to work as clerk right from day one. 6. After admission and sufficient time having been allowed to the respondents, they did not choose to file reply to these writ petitions. As such, all these cases have been taken up for consideration on the basis of facts pleaded in these petitions. With a view to support the case of their clients, learned counsel urged that petitioners are entitled to regularization. Because they have put best part their life in the service of respondents as casual paid labourers. Further that the petitioners have become overage for seeking regular employment elsewhere. This is purely due to acts of the respondents. 7. Status of General Reserve Engineer Force had been under consideration of the Government for quite sometime. On the judicial side it came up for consideration in case of R. Viswan and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1983 S.C. 658 . In this judgment, a Constitution Bench held and came to the conclusion that General Reserve Engineer Force is an integral part of the Armed Forces 8. After this decision, vide No. F. 81 (1)/64-East/79463/DGBR/E2A (T & C dated 14.8.1984 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping and Transport, Border, Roads Development Board, "B" Wing, 4th Floor, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi -11, the president declared that General Reserve Engineer Force is an integral part of Armed forces of India. At the time of hearing of these writ petitions, a copy of this communication to this effect was placed on record by the learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel. 9. Border Road Organisation of which General Engineer Force is a part, has framed "Border Road Regulations". Mrs. Shilpa Sood, referred to its Reprint 1993 Edition. At the time of hearing of these writ petitions, a copy of this communication to this effect was placed on record by the learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel. 9. Border Road Organisation of which General Engineer Force is a part, has framed "Border Road Regulations". Mrs. Shilpa Sood, referred to its Reprint 1993 Edition. Section 13 of these Regulations deals with casual personnel. For ready reference, relevant calluses of this Section are extracted herein below : "501. The following paragraphs deal with the terms and conditions of service of labour recruited locally and employed to supplement (GREF) Pioneers in the Border Roads Organisation and for other odd jobs like shifting of stores etc. Such locally recruited labour will be called 'Casual personnel'. 502. Casual personnel should not be below the age of 16 years . 503. The personnel may be employed on daily or monthly rates, of pay, if on monthly rates, the period of their engagement shall be for a maximum period of six months at a time and the personnel shall not be eligible for any of the privileges of continued employment under Government. The services of the personnel are liable to be terminated at any time without notice and no terminal benefits shall be payable. 504. The daily or monthly rates of wages will be fixed by the Chief Engineer in consultation with the local Civil authorities. Such wages shall not be less than the minimum wages Act, 1948.' 10. In the face of these provisions of the Regulations and even in the absence of reply filed on behalf of respondents, prima-facie no relief can be granted to the petitioners in these petitions, so far regularisation is concerned. Reason being, that when all the three petitioners joined as casual paid labourers with the respondents on different dates, (as noted hereinabove), they were well aware that neither General Reserve Engineer force is an industry, nor they are workmen for the purpose of law governing an industry or industrial establishment. 11. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the respondents, that subject to the availability of work, petitioners are continuing in the service of respondents. Their conditions of engagement with the respondents are governed by the Regulations framed by the Border Road Organisation as extracted hereinabove. There is nothing in these Regulations to suggest that the petitioners are entitled to regularisation as claimed by them. Their conditions of engagement with the respondents are governed by the Regulations framed by the Border Road Organisation as extracted hereinabove. There is nothing in these Regulations to suggest that the petitioners are entitled to regularisation as claimed by them. They can be continued to be engaged as casual paid labourers. Their continuation supports the submission of Mrs. Sood, Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, that her clients are acting fairly. So far regularisation is concerned, it has to be against some existing post and/or against some created post. Admittedly it is not he case of the petitioners that regular posts are available and petitioners are not being considered against those. 12. On the other hand, a perusal of the above Regulations clearly indicates that engagements of the petitioners and other similarly situate persons are local engagements to assist the regular establishment of the respondents. And as already observed, regularisation can only be ordered against an existing regular vacancy and not otherwise. Admittedly that is not the case of the petitioners. 13. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Border Road Regulations operate harshly against not only the petitioners, but against all the other similarly situate persons. Therefore, a direction needs to be issued to the respondents to re-examine and re-evaluate the cases of all of them. Otherwise after having put in more than one decade as casual paid labourers, their future hangs in uncertainly. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, (1992) 4 SCC 118 . Relevant paras of this judgment are as under: - "21. Ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again that lays down the conditions of service subject, of course to a law made by the appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or (in the absence of such rules) by issuing rules/instructions in exercise of its executive power. The Court comes into the picture only to -ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions of service. The Court comes into the picture only to -ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions of service. The main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the Court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularization. While all the situations in which the court may act to ensure fairness cannot be detailed here, it is sufficient to indicate that the guiding principles are the ones stated above. The principles relevant in several decisions, of which it would be sufficient to mention two decisions having a bearing upon the issue involved here. They are Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnatka and Jacob M. Puthuparmbil v. Kerela Water Authority. In the first case, it was alleged that about 50,000 persons were being employed on daily-rated or on monthly-rated basis over a period of 15 to 20 years, without regularising them. It was contended that the very facts that they are continued over such a long period is itself proof of the fact that there is regular need for such employment. In that view of the matter, following directions were given, after reviewing the earlier decisions of this Court elaborately: (SCC p.408, para 23) "2. From amongst the casual and daily rated employees who have completed ten years of service by December 31, 1989, 18, 600 shall immediately by regularised with effect from January 1, 1990 on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. In that view of the matter, following directions were given, after reviewing the earlier decisions of this Court elaborately: (SCC p.408, para 23) "2. From amongst the casual and daily rated employees who have completed ten years of service by December 31, 1989, 18, 600 shall immediately by regularised with effect from January 1, 1990 on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. There shall be no examination but physical infirmity shall mainly be the test of suitability. 3. The remaining monthly rated employees covered by the paragraph 1 who have completed ten years of service as on December 31, 1989 shall be regularised before December 31, 1990 in a phased manner of the basis of seniority-sum-suitability, suitability being understood in the same way as above. 4. The balance of casual or daily rated employees who become entitled to absorption, on the basis of completing ten years of services shall be absorbed/regularized in a phased manner on the same principle as above on or before December 31, 1997. 5. At the point of regularization, credit shall be given for every unit of five years of service in excess of ten years and one additional increment in the time scale of pay shall be allowed by way of weightage. There was a direction that the claims on other heads would be considered at the time of final disposal. We have come to the conclusion that apart from these reliefs no other would no admissible." 51. So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated April 6, 1990 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work charged employees as well as casual labour." 14. So far this prayer is concerned, all that can be said is that in case regular vacancies are available, keeping in view other relevant factors, including length of service as casual paid labourers, cases of petitioners and other similarly situate persons may be considered by the respondents, of course, as per relevant provisions of law. At the same time, respondents may also re-examine the whole scheme of Border Roads Regulation to avoid hardship and also to mitigate the same as far as possible keeping in view the availability of regular vacancies and/or those may be created in future to accommodate those who have been working for long time as casual paid labourers like petitioners. 15. Reliance was also placed by Mrs. Shilpa Sood, learned counsel on a decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in case of Mohammad Hussain and others v. Union of India and others, CWP No. 761 of 1990, wherein identical question (as in all these cases), was involved and the writ petitions were finally dismissed. On the basis of material on record and after having gone through the relevant provisions of law, see no reason to take different view from the one taken by the said Court. In this context, it may be pointed out that facts in case before Jammu and Kashmir High Court and in the present writ petitions are identical. 16. No other point is urged. 17. Subject to the aforesaid observations qua framing of scheme under Border Roads Regulations for regularising the petitioners and other similarly situate persons keeping in view their length of service and all other relevant factors, of course, under the relevant provisions of law, these writ petitions are rejected. No order as to costs.