Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant writ petition the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern-Western Railways, Jaipur has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 03.08.2004 allowing the Original Application filed by respondent Nathoo Ram directing the appellant to consider his case for regularisation on the post of Fitter Gr. III keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Kalu & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2003 (2) WLC page 8. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the second respondent Nathoo Ram was initially engaged as a casual labour on 07.03.1972. He attained temporary status on 31st January, 1973. Thereafter, he was appointed as Fitter in the Grade of Rs. 260-40/-and posted to work under Inspector of Works, Lalgarh. The say of the respondent is that he worked on the said post without interruption. He has been paid in regular scale of pay and granted fixation in the Revision Pay Scale meant for the post of Fitter i.e., Rs. 950-1500/-and Rs. 3,050-4,590/-as per the recommendations of the 4th and 5th Pay Commissions respectively. He has also got his due increments including the stagnation increment and his pay was fixed at Rs. 4,670/-. He also passed the screening test on 18.04.1981. He filed the Original Application seeking direction to consider his case for regularisation on the post of Fitter Gr. III, on which has been working for the last more than 31 years. According to the petitioners, the services of the respondent was regularized on the post of Khalasi in Group D by order dated 14.09.1991 and he was never promoted on the post of Fitter. Thus, the stand of the petitioner is that the respondent having accepted the post of Khalasi cannot now claim regularisation on the post of Fitter on the ground of merely working on the said post. 3. Thus, the stand of the petitioner is that the respondent having accepted the post of Khalasi cannot now claim regularisation on the post of Fitter on the ground of merely working on the said post. 3. The Tribunal noted the undisputed facts in Para 5 of the Judgment as follows:-"The admitted position of the case is that the applicant has been continuously employed on the post of Fitter with effect from 31.01.1973 (except for a short period of about 5 days in the year 1991) and has been granted the pay in the pay scales as revised from time to time with due increment, meant for the post of Fitter Grade III which is admittedly a class C category post. It is also true that he has screened for group D post and he passed the same and was absorbed against regular establishment in the Railways." 4. A heavy reliance was placed by the respondent on a Judgment of this Court in Kalus case (Supra). On the other hand, the petitioners placed reliance on another Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Deeen Dayal Gupta & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) CDR page 1472. The Tribunal found that Deen Dayal Guptas case has no application to the facts of the instant case and the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of Kalus case. 5. It is contended by Mr. Manoj Bhandari learned Counsel for the Railway Administration that the Tribunal committed error in not considering that the claim of the respondent for regularisation on the post of Fitter was not tenable as he did not pass the Trade Test. It is further submitted that unless there a vacancy on the post of Fitter, the question of arranging Trade Test does not arise. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously distinguished a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Deen Dayals case (Supra). On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the Judgment of the Tribunal. 6. We have carefully gone through both the Judgment s referred to above. As far as Deen Dayal Guptas case (Supra) is concerned one of us was a party to it. (N.N. Mathur J.). In our view the Judgment in Deen Dayals case has been rightly distinguished by the Tribunal. 6. We have carefully gone through both the Judgment s referred to above. As far as Deen Dayal Guptas case (Supra) is concerned one of us was a party to it. (N.N. Mathur J.). In our view the Judgment in Deen Dayals case has been rightly distinguished by the Tribunal. In the said case the concerned workmen were initially engaged as casual labour. They were granted temporary status of Gang Man. After some time they were sent on deputation with the construction organization. The workmen concerned accepted the same assignment without any demur. Only in the Construction Division they were asked to work on ad hoc basis as MCC. Thus, the lien of workmen concerned remained with the parent department i.e., the Assistant Engineer, Northern Railway, Bikaner. Thus, in the opinion of this Court the workmen had a chance of promotion only in the parent department wherein they were in Group D. It was further held that on a deputation post the workman had no right to be considered either of promotion or absorption. The Court further held that the regularisation cannot be permitted to be made by borrowing department as thereby it would amount to their permanent absorption. Another Division Bench of this Court in Kalus case (Supra) has considered the entire law on the point in great depth and detail. The Tribunal has extracted paragraphs 8 to 13 of the said Judgment in the impugned order. This Court was in pain to observe that the Railway is not following its own circulars issued from time to time. There is a reference to Circulars dated 11/15 February, 1991, 13.02.1997 and 09.04.1997. In view of the said circulars the workmen concerned were found to be considered for regularisation of their services in Group C Post. 7. On careful consideration of entire material, we are of the view that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Kalus case (Supra). It is expected of the petitioners to at least follow their own circulars. It is not in dispute that the respondent has been working as Fitter for the last more than 31 years as on the date of filling of the Original Application. He has been paid salary and allowances of the post of Fitter. In our view no interference is warranted with the order of the Tribunal. 8. It is not in dispute that the respondent has been working as Fitter for the last more than 31 years as on the date of filling of the Original Application. He has been paid salary and allowances of the post of Fitter. In our view no interference is warranted with the order of the Tribunal. 8. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost.