Judgment 1. Heard Dr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner Union of India and Mr. S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. This writ application is directed against tne order as contained in Annexure 6 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as CAT) dated 8.7.2003 in O.A. No. 579 of 2002. 3. Respondent No. 2 was engaged to work as Night Guard in Suhridnagar subpost office in the district of Begusarai by order passed in the year 1984 on the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Begusarai as burglary was commited in the sub-post office in question. Respondent No. 2 after six months, however, abandoned the work but somehow or the other, he was again re-engaged in the year 1991 and thereafter was disengaged vide order dated 28th June, 1995 which was challenged before the CAT giving rise to the order impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no. 2 was a casual labourer and he was never engaged against a sanctioned post nor against a pay-scale. It is further submitted that since burglary was committed in the sub-post office in question, on the advice of the District Magistrate, respondent no. 2 was engaged to work for some time as Night Guard on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 30/- per month and therefore, respondent no. 2 had no right to the post nor he can claim to be regularised on the post of Night Guard. Dr. Ravi Ranjan, learned Counsel further submitted that no Night Guard was engaged after respondent no. 2 in sub-post office in question. 5. It is not the case of respondent no. 2 that he is entitled to be regularised on the post of Night Guard as in other sub-post offices Night Guards are engaged and they have been regularised. 6. The CAT, considering the fact that since respondent no. 2 had continued to work as Night Guard for some time, observed that his case should be considered for his appointment as casual labourer where as Night Guards were not engaged in any other sub-post offices not the post as such was sanctioned. 7. The respondent no. 2 in the given facts and circumstances of the Case, therefore, had no legal right to ask for his continuance on the post of Night Guard. 7. The respondent no. 2 in the given facts and circumstances of the Case, therefore, had no legal right to ask for his continuance on the post of Night Guard. The order impugned passed by the CAT, in that view of the matter, is not sustainable in law. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned is set aside.