Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. Southern Railway and its Officers are the petitioners in the above Writ Petitions. W.P.No. 8173 of 2001 has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras dated 08-01-2001 made in O.A.No. 784/98 wherein the Tribunal directed the Railway administration to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation under the decasualisation scheme. Against the grant of similar directions in O.A.Nos. 648/97 and 371/96, the Railway administration has also preferred W.P.Nos. 1411 and 1417 of 2000. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. First we shall consider W.P.No. 8173 of 2001. In this case, the second respondent herein, namely, K. Yesudasan filed O.A.No. 784/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying for a direction to regularise his service in the scale of Rs.950-1500 on par with juniors who were regularised in the decasualisation vacancies in the scale of Rs.950-1500 and grant of all consequential benefits. It is the case of the applicant that he was originally engaged as a casual labourer on daily wage basis. He was subsequently granted temporary status with effect from 11-3-1977 and thereafter he was granted C.P.C scale of pay in scale Rs.196-232 from casual labourer. He was promoted as C.P.C Looter in the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500. Previously he was appointed as Gangman with effect from 16-3-89 in the pay scale of Rs.775-1025. Thereafter, the applicant became a regular railway servant. The applicant was promoted as Senior Gangman with effect from 01-04-89 in the scale of pay of Rs.800-1150. It is the claim of the applicant that when the department had implemented the scheme of decasualisation of casual labourer, he was excluded from the decasualisation list even though he was senior to many casual labourers, who have been decasualised and empanelled. 4. Before the Tribunal, Railway administration filed a reply stating that the applicant belonged to a Trade i.e., Looter which does not figure in the list of artisans grade and, therefore, his name cannot be considered for extension of the benefit under the decasualisation scheme which was implemented in 1992-93. It is also the claim of the Railway administration that his application is barred by limitation. 5. The Tribunal, after finding that the Looter is a person who effectively assists the Welder, is fit enough to classify as an Artisan, directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation under decasualisation scheme. 6. It is also the claim of the Railway administration that his application is barred by limitation. 5. The Tribunal, after finding that the Looter is a person who effectively assists the Welder, is fit enough to classify as an Artisan, directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation under decasualisation scheme. 6. Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, Additional Central Government Standing counsel, by drawing our attention to decasualisation scheme and also pointing out that inasmuch as the applicant was a permanent employee i.e., Gangman in the scale of pay of Rs.775-1025, he was not coming within the zone of consideration with reference to the number of posts allotted as part of decasualisation scheme, contended that the Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned order. 7. There is no dispute regarding the scheme, namely, decasualisation scheme brought out by the Railway administration for the benefit of casuals working in the Railways for several years. According to the Railway counsel, the said scheme is applicable only to Artisans, namely, those who were engaged in manual, mechanical skilled work. He also brought to our notice that the artisans are engaged in the Engineering department in the following trades:- (1) Driver; (2) Hammerman; (3) Welder; (4) Fitter; (5) Moulder; (6) Carpenter; (7) Bricklayer; (8) Blacksmith; (9) Painter; (10) Plumber. It is also the claim of the Railway administration that inasmuch as the scheme does not envisage Looter, the direction issued by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is also brought to our notice that the decasualisation scheme should go to casual labour artisans only and it should not be diverted to the employee in the regular stream. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the reply statement of the Railway administration filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In para 4 it is stated that "... It is also brought to our notice that the decasualisation scheme should go to casual labour artisans only and it should not be diverted to the employee in the regular stream. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the reply statement of the Railway administration filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In para 4 it is stated that "... The name of the applicant was not considered when absorption against posts created under decasualisation scheme as he was permanent employee and he did not come within the zone of consideration with reference to the number of posts allotted under the decasualisation..." Again, in the same paragraph, it is stated that "...As the applicant was working as CPC Luter prior to his empanelment as gangman which is a non standard post, he could not also be considered under para 1 (c) which has not been quashed by the Hon'ble Tribunal." In para 6 (g) it is specifically stated that "The respondents submit that none of the Gangmen were absorbed against the posts sanctioned under decasualisation scheme, however, the Gangmen who were absorbed on or after 1.1.82 and previously holding the Artisans posts (Standard) were considered in terms of para 1 (C) of CPO/MAS Lr. dt. 14-8-91 and it is further denied that none of the candidates who have been absorbed as Artisan were not subjected to trade test..." Though the applicant has filed a counter disputing the same, inasmuch as the information given by the department is based on the records, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel, the same cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant information in the reply affidavit. Inasmuch as the post "Looter" has not been included in the scheme of decasualisation and also taking note of the specific assertion in the affidavit that the applicant was a Gangman in the scale of pay of Rs.950-1025 on the date of the scheme, we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in issuing direction for absorption in terms of the scheme for decasualisation. We are also satisfied that the Tribunal failed to note that the applicant was not eligible to be considered for absorption in the decasualisation scheme as he was permanently absorbed as Gangman when the decasualisation scheme was introduced. We are also satisfied that the Tribunal failed to note that the applicant was not eligible to be considered for absorption in the decasualisation scheme as he was permanently absorbed as Gangman when the decasualisation scheme was introduced. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out, the applicant was working only as C.P.C Lotter and could not be fitted in the category of Welder for being eligible for consideration in the decasualisation scheme and merely because he had assisted the Welder, he could not be placed in the category of Welder. As rightly pointed out, the scheme cannot be expanded by the Tribunal/Courts by giving liberal interpretation. Though learned counsel appearing for the second respondent vehemently contended that even now the second respondent is in the same scale of pay, that may not be a ground to sustain the order of the Tribunal. However, the second respondent herein is free to vindicate his grievance in respect of his stagnation if any before the appropriate authority by making representation. However, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 8-1-2001 cannot be sustained. 8. Coming to W.P.Nos. 1411 and 1417 of 2000, Mr. V.G. Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the Railway administration, has brought to our notice that all the applicants/respondents herein were subsequently absorbed and in such a circumstance, according to him, the applicants have no grievance. He also brought to our notice various implementation orders absorbing the applicants concerned. In the light of the above position, we feel no further adjudication/orders are required in these two writ petitions. 9. Net result, Writ Petition No. 8173 of 2001 is allowed. Writ Petition Nos. 1411 and 1417 of 2000 are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. W.P.M.P.No. 2097/2000 is closed.