Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. The petitioners 1 to 8 seeking to quash the order of the Tribunal refusing the grant of relief sought for by the petitioners to take them for appointment to Group 'D' post with all monetary and service benefits have filed this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioners, they were engaged with the Railway Construction Organisation as casual labourers; they have put in considerable number of days of service after their engagement in the year 1981; they have not been regularised whereas a number of other casual labourers with 277 days of aggregate service have been regularised as Group 'D'; and therefore, they sought Mandamus from the Tribunal. 3. The case of the respondents is, as per the Railway Board's letter dated 18.12.1980, the casual labourers are to be engaged only after obtaining prior approval of the General Manager and such authorisation shall not be delegated to the lower level; though the applicants had been engaged as casual labourers after 1.1.1981, the names of those have not been registered in the live casual register as there was a ban conveyed by the Railway Board's letter and as such, they are not entitled for regularisation. 4. It is the specific case of the respondents that regularisation of casual labourers has taken place only with reference to the casual labourers engaged prior to 1.1.1981 borne out in the live register. 5. Accepting the case of the respondents, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by the order dated 21.8.1997. Seeking for review, the petitioners filed an application in R.A.No.78 of 1997 before the Tribunal pressing for the same relief. However, by the order dated 30.9.1997, the Tribunal dismissed the review. Hence, this writ petition before this Court. 6. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. 7. The impugned orders both in the main application and in the Review Application are being assailed on the ground that even though the petitioners were working as casual labourers, the Tribunal has failed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation though have put in not less than 277 days of aggregate service. 8. 7. The impugned orders both in the main application and in the Review Application are being assailed on the ground that even though the petitioners were working as casual labourers, the Tribunal has failed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation though have put in not less than 277 days of aggregate service. 8. We are unable to countenance this submission in view of the stand taken by the respondents that prior to 18.12.1980, the casual labourers were engaged by the Senior Supervisory Officials of the concerned Railway Unit, but by the letter dated 18.12.1980, the Railway Board had given a specific instruction after review that "in take of fresh Casual Labour should be resorted to only after obtaining prior personal approval of the General Manager and this authorisation has not been delegated to a lower level", that the petitioners were engaged as casual labourers only after 1.1.1981 in the construction units after the issuance of the Board's letter dated 18.12.1980 without the prior approval of the General Manager and that their names do not find a place in the "Live Casual Labour Register" as their initial engagement itself was without the approval of the competent authority, viz., the General Manager. 9. Further, Railway Board issued instruction to maintain Live Casual Labour Registers containing the names of such casual labourers who were engaged prior to 1.1.1981 and discharged after 1.1.1981. Even according to the petitioners, they were engaged as casual labourers only in June 1981. Thus, it is obvious that their engagement was subsequent to the ban imposed by the Railway Board by the letter dated 18.12.1980. Therefore, they cannot claim as of right for regularisation. 10. Further, as correctly pointed out by the Tribunal, they have approached the Tribunal only in the year 1994 with unexplained and undue delay. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal made in O.A.No.1526 of 1994 dated 21.8.1997 and in R.A.No.78 of 1997 dated 30.9.1997. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P.No.30597 of 1997 is closed.