JUDGMENT 1. - The original applicant has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Central Administration Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. 2. For the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the petitioner 'the employee" and the respondents No. 1 to 3 collectively the 'railway administration'. 3. The brief facts leading to the controversy are thus : (i) The employee was appointed on 30.11.1974 as casual labour as Mechanic/Driver in the scale of 260-400 (RP) in Kota Division of the railways. (ii) The scale of 260-400 was subsequently revised to 950- 1500. (iii) The employee was granted temporary status on 1.1.1981. (iv) The employee is said to have passed the trade test on 10.10.1986. (v) According to the petitioner, vide Railway Board's instructions contained in their letter dated 24.2.1979, the vacancies in the scale of Artisan grade are required to be filled in on percentage basis namely; 25% by open market candidates; 25% from amongst the serving employees in skilled and unskilled categories having the prescribed qualifications and 50% from amongst rankers on seniority-cum-sutiability basis. Based on that, it is the case of the employee that having already qualified the trade test on the Construction Project Site, he was not required to undergo trade test again for suitability in open line. However, he was not regularised on the post of Driver (Group-C). (vi) He filed Original Application (192/94) before the Central Administrative Tribunal for his regularisation. (vii) On 30.6.1994, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur disposed of OA 192/94 directing the railway administration to consider the case of regularisation of the employee within a period of three months in accordance with the rules and equity. The Tribunal further observed that in case the juniors to the employee have been regularised, the employee would be entitled for regularisation from the date his junior/s were regularised. (viii) The Employee's claim for his regularisation in Group C was not accepted and instead by the order dated 29.5.1997, the employee was regularised on the post of Gangman (Group-D), that led the employee to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order dated 29.5.1997 and for his regularisation in Group-C post (Driver) Scale 950-1500. (viii) The Employee's claim for his regularisation in Group C was not accepted and instead by the order dated 29.5.1997, the employee was regularised on the post of Gangman (Group-D), that led the employee to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order dated 29.5.1997 and for his regularisation in Group-C post (Driver) Scale 950-1500. (viii) The Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of this OA 231/1997 on 31.7.1997 whereby the Tribunal gave direction to the railway administration that if the employee was found senior enough to be eligible for consideration and appointment or the post of Driver and has proved to show that he has passed the trade test, he should be considered for regularisation on the post of Driver in accordance with item (ii) of para 3 of Railway Board's Circular dated 9.4.1997 and other rules applicable subject to availability of vacancy. The Tribunal made it clear that this direction shall not affect the rights of Anwar Ahmed who has been regularised in accordance with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal further directed that before undertaking this exercise, the railway administration shall draw up a common seniority list in this regard. (ix) The employee is said to have made representation to the railway administration for his regularisation in Group-C in the light of the order dated 31.7.1997 but instead the orders dated 4.9.1997 and 1.10.1997 came to be issued regularising his services on the post of Gangman (Group-D). That necessitated filling of OA No. 501/1997. The employee prayed therein for quashing the orders dated 4.9.1997 and 4.10.1997 and direction to the railway administration to regularise him on the post of Driver-cum-Machanic in the pay scale of 950-1500 (Group-C) with all consequential benefits. That necessitated filling of OA No. 501/1997. The employee prayed therein for quashing the orders dated 4.9.1997 and 4.10.1997 and direction to the railway administration to regularise him on the post of Driver-cum-Machanic in the pay scale of 950-1500 (Group-C) with all consequential benefits. (x) In opposition to the OA 501/1997, inter-alia, the railway administration set up the defence that the employee has already agitated his claim for regularisation on the post of Driver (Group-C) in OA No. 231/1997 which was decided on 31.7.1997 and, therefore, it was not open to the employee to re-agitate the same issue relating to his regularisation in Group-C. The railway administration justified regularisation of the employee on the post of Gangman in Group-D. (xi) The Central Administrative Tribunal persuaded by the submission of the railway administration that the employee cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue which was already raised by him in earlier OA No. 231/1997 disposed of OA No. 501/1997 on 18.12.2000. The Tribunal also held that since the employee was initially engaged as casual labour, he cannot be regularised in Group-C post as was held by the Tribunal (Principal Bench at Delhi) in the case of Jammuna Prasad & Others v. Union of India & Others - OA No. 18/1992 and 3217/1992 . (xii) As noticed above, it is the order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal that is impugned in the present writ petition. 4. We heard Mr. Rajveer Sharma, counsel for the employee and Mr. Alok Garg counsel for the railway administration. 5. It appears from the document (Annexure-1) annexed with the writ petition that on 30.11.1974 the employee was engaged as casual labour in Machanic/Driver grade 260-400. He also seems to have passed trade test on 10.10.1986. Before that he was given temporary status since 1.1.1981. In the year 1994 vide O.A No. 192/1994, he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal for his regularisation on the post of Driver (Group-C). The said OA was disposed of by the Tribunal on 30.6.1994 with a direction to the railway administration to consider the case of the employee for regularisation. It is pertinent to notice here that in its order dated 30.6.1994, the Tribunal did not direct the railway administration to regularise the employee in a particular group i.e. Group 'C' or Gorup 'D'. It is pertinent to notice here that in its order dated 30.6.1994, the Tribunal did not direct the railway administration to regularise the employee in a particular group i.e. Group 'C' or Gorup 'D'. Thereafter by the order dated 29.5.1997, amongst others, the employee was regularised in the open line as Gangman in scale 775-1025 (RP) and his services were transferred to open line. This order was challenged by the employee in OA No. 231/1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The employee set up the case in OA No. 231/1997 thus that he was appointed on the post of Driver cum Mechanic scale 260-400 in Kota Division No. 30.11.1974; that he was granted temporary status on 1.1.1981; that he passed trade test on 10.10.1986; that in the earlier Original Application No. 192/1994, the Tribunal in its order dated 30.6.1994 directed the railway administration that in case persons junior to him have been regularised then the employee will also be entitled to regularisation from the date his junior/s was/were regularised; that after the judgment of the Tribunal, one Anwar Ahmed who was junior to him was regularised; that he (the employee) was direct recruit to the post of Driver which was an artisan category to which direct recruitment could be made under paragraph 2007-of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual'(IREM); that the percentage for recruitment are prescribed by the Railway Board amongst the open market candidates and from amongst service employees and the appointment to the post of Driver could be made on regular basis from amongst both the categories; that Railway Board has issued a circular on 9.4.1997 that causal labour can be regularised against Group-C post itself and, thus, the action of the railway administration in regularising him on the post of Gangman which is Group-D is illegal and improper. In opposing the employee's case in OA No. 231/1997, the railway administration set up the defence that the employee was appointed as a casual labour only; that he has to prove that he has in fact passed the trade test; that the employee was not direct recruit to the post of Driver and that paragraph 2007 of IREM was not applicable. 6. The Tribunal considered the submissions of the rival parties and also considered the instructions contained in the office order dated 9.4.1997 issued by the Railway Board. 6. The Tribunal considered the submissions of the rival parties and also considered the instructions contained in the office order dated 9.4.1997 issued by the Railway Board. The Tribunal found that the complete seniority list of all persons who were eligible for consideration for regularisation on the post of Driver in the Division was not available. However, it observed that if the employee was found senior and eligible for consideration for appointment on the post of Driver and has proof to show that he has passed the trade test, he should be considered for regularisation on the post of Driver in accordance with item (ii) of Paragraph 3 of the Railway's circular dated 9.4.1997. The Tribunal also directed in its order dated 31.7.1997 disposing of OA No. 231/1997 that before undertaking the exercise of regularisation on the post of Driver as directed in the order, the railway administration shall draw up a common seniority list in this regard. 7. Then the order dated 4.9.1997 came to be passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Kota regularising the services of the employee on the post of Gangman in Group-D again. In the office order dated 4.9.1997, the name of the employee appears at item 249. Consequent there-upon.the order came to be issued on 1.10.1997 by the office of the Deputy General Manager (Civil), Kota regularising the employee on Group-D post and it was further directed that his lien shall be maintained in Kota Division. 8. The employee challenged the orders dated 4.9.1997 and 1.10.1997 by filing original application which as noticed above was dismissed on 8.12.2000. It would be, thus, seen that the employee has been agitating his claim for regularisation on the post of Driver (Group-C) and for redressal of his grievance, he approached the Tribunal thrice. First by filing OA No. 192/1994; thereafter by OA No. 231/1997 and then lastly vide OA No. 501/1997. In the first order dated 30.6.1994, the Tribunal directed the railway administration to consider the case of the employee for regularisation in accordance with the rules and equity and if his junior/s have been regularised prior to him, to give regularisation to the employee from the date his junior/s have been regularised. In the first order dated 30.6.1994, the Tribunal directed the railway administration to consider the case of the employee for regularisation in accordance with the rules and equity and if his junior/s have been regularised prior to him, to give regularisation to the employee from the date his junior/s have been regularised. The regularisation of the employee was done but not in Group-C. Then again in its order dated 31.7.1997 the Tribunal directed the railway administration to first draw up a common seniority list of the eligible candidates for consideration of the regularisation on the post of Driver in the Division and then consider the case of the employee for regularisation on the post of Driver in accord with item (ii) of paragraph 3 of the Railway Board's circular dated 9.4.1997 if he was found senior enough and produced the proof to show that he has passed the trade test. As a matter of fact, the railway administration could have avoided further litigation by proceeding as per the order dated 31.7.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal but they did not and passed an order regulating the services of the employee on the post of Gangman in Group-D only without first finalising the seniority list of eligible candidates. 9. At this stage we deem it proper to refer to the decisions cited by the counsel for the parties at the bar. 10. The counsel for the employee relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely : (i) Inder Pal Yadav & Others v. Union of India and others (1985) 2 SCC 648 - to be referred by us as Inder Pal Yadav I, and (ii) V. M. Chandra v. Union of India - 1994 (4) SLR 332. 11. On the other hand, the counsel for the railway administration relied upon the decisions, namely; (i) Union of India & another v. Moti Lal & others - (1996) 7 SCC 481 ; (ii) Bhadel Rai v. Union of India & Others (2005) 11 SCC 298 ; (iii) Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others (2005) 11 SCC 301 - to be referred by us as Inderpal Yadav-II; and (iv) Union of India & Others v. Deen Dayal Gupta & Others 2003 (2) CDR 1472 (Raj.) . 12. 12. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav-I, the Supreme Court was concerned with a scheme framed by the railway administration concerning casual labour on project who were in service as on January 1, 1984 and not in service on January 1, 1984 but had been in service of railways earlier and they completed the prescribed period of 360 days of continuous employment. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report, the Supreme Court observed thus : "The Scheme envisages that it would be applicable to casual labour on project who were in service as on January 1, 1984. The choice of this date does not commend to us, for it is likely to introduce an invidious distinction between similarly situated persons and expose some workmen to arbitrary discrimination flowing from fortuitous court's order. To illustrate, in some matters, the court granted interim stay before the workmen could be retrenched while some other were not so fortunate. Those in respect of whom the court granted interim relief be stay/suspension of the order of retrenchment, they would be treated in service on 11.1.1984 while others who fail to obtain interim relief though similarly situated would be pushed down in the implementation of the Scheme. There is another area where discrimination is likely to rear its ugly head. These workmen come from the lowest grade of railway service. They can ill afford to rush to court. Their Federations have hardly been of any assistance. They had individually to collect money and rush to court which in case of some may be beyond their reach. Therefore, some of the retrenched workmen failed to knock 842 at the doors of the court of justice because these doors do not open unless huge expenses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even without crystal gazing is between incurring expenses for a litigation with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. It is a Hobson's choice. Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court. Burdened by all these relevant considerations and keeping in view all the aspects of the matter, we would modify part 5.1 (a) (i) by modifying the date from 1.1.1984 to 1.1.1981. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court. Burdened by all these relevant considerations and keeping in view all the aspects of the matter, we would modify part 5.1 (a) (i) by modifying the date from 1.1.1984 to 1.1.1981. With this modification and consequent rescheduling in absorption from that date onward the Scheme framed by Railway Ministry is accepted and a direction is given that it must be implemented by re-casting the stages consistent with the change in the ate as herein directed. 6. To avoid violation of Article 14, the scientific and equitable way if implementing the scheme is for the Railway Administration to prepare, a list of project casual labour with reference to each division of each railway and then start absorbing those with the longest service. If in the process any adjustments are necessary, the same must be done. In giving this direction, we are considerably influenced by the statutory recognition of a principle well known in industrial jurisprudence that the men with longest service shall have priority over those who have joined later on. In other words, the principle of last come first go or to reverse it first come last go as enunciated in Section G on the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been accepted. We direct accordingly." 13. In the case of Moti Lal, the matter reached the Supreme Court from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the railway authorities to absorb the respondents therein on regular basis. In paragraph 8 of the report, the Supreme Court formulated two questions for consideration: (i) Was it permissible under rules to appoint a person directly as mate in Class III and if not, then whether the factual continuance of the person as a mate for a considerable period entitles him to be regularised as a mate? and (ii) Conferment of a temporary status as a mate whether ipso facto entitles a person to be regularised as a mate and not as a gangman? The Supreme Court considered the matter thus : "9. and (ii) Conferment of a temporary status as a mate whether ipso facto entitles a person to be regularised as a mate and not as a gangman? The Supreme Court considered the matter thus : "9. So far as the first question is concerned, on examining the relevant provisions of the rules, as well as the administrative instructions issued by the Railway authorities we are of the considered opinion that it is not permissible to appoint a person directly as a made and it is only a promotional post from Class IV post of gangman and keyman. These gangmen and keymen can be promoted to the post of mate in Class III subject to their suitability and efficiency being tested through trade test. It is not doubt true that these respondents under certain circumstances had been appointed directly as casual mates and they continued as such and further by virtue of their continuance they acquired temporary status but that by itself does not entitle them to be regularised as mates since that would be contrary to the rules in force. In our considered opinion the respondents did not acquire a right or regularisation as mates from mere fact of their continuance as casual mates for a considerable period. 10. So far as the second question is concerned, we are also of the considered opinion that conferment of the temporary status as mate ipso facto does not entitle the person concerned to regular absorption as mate. In the case of Ram Kumar v. Union of India , this Court has held that an employee on daily-wage basis under the Railway acquires temporary status on completion of a specified number of days in service and with the acquisition of the said status such employees are entitled to: (SCC p. 309, para 7) (1) Termination of service and period of notice (subject to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947). (2) Scales of pay. (3) Compensatory and local allowances. (4) Medical attendance. (5) Leave rules. (6) Provident fund and terminal gratuity. (7) Allotment of railway accommodation and recovery of rent. (8) Railway passes. (9) Advances. (10) Any other benefit, specifically authorised by the Ministry of Railways. (11). (2) Scales of pay. (3) Compensatory and local allowances. (4) Medical attendance. (5) Leave rules. (6) Provident fund and terminal gratuity. (7) Allotment of railway accommodation and recovery of rent. (8) Railway passes. (9) Advances. (10) Any other benefit, specifically authorised by the Ministry of Railways. (11). Thus it is apparent that a daily-wage or casual worker against a particular post when acquires a temporary status having worked against the said post for specified number of days does not acquire a right to be regularised against the said post. He can be considered for regularisation in accordance with the rules and, therefore, so far as the post of mate under Railways is concerned the same has to be filled up by a promotion from the post of gangman and keyman in Class IV subject to employees passing the trade test. (12). In this view of the matter the Tribunal was not justified in directing regularisation of the respondents as mate. (13). Even though on principle we are in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Goswami, learned Senior counsel appearing for railway administration but having taken into account the fact that the respondents were directly appointed as mates though on casual basis and having continued as such mates for more than 22 to 25 years it will be wholly inequitable to require them to be refularised against the post of gangman in Class IV. In the premises, as aforesaid, we decline to interfere with the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal on equitable ground-in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The direction will not be treated as a precedent." 14. In the case of V.M. Chandra, the appellant was engaged as technical mate on casual basis; he was given temporary status but denied regularisation as a skilled arisan in Grade III in Scale of 950-1500. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court and it was held that the appellant therein was entitled to be absorbed as skilled artisan in Grade III and the rejection of the claim by the Chairman of the Railway Board irrespective of the post held by them were in the same status was not sustainable being unjustified. This is how the matter was considered by the Supreme Court : "2. This is how the matter was considered by the Supreme Court : "2. The order dated October 30, 1985 by which the appellant was appointed clearly indicates that her services had been engaged as a technical Mate since she had completed the course of diploma in technical subjects. The view taken by the Chairman of the Railway Board that there is no post of Technical Mate available for absorption itself appears to be incorrect inasmuch as the Railway Board by its communications No. P9S)443/Misc/MP/MASNo.X stated as follows : "Board have communicated their approval for considering the casual labour technical mates in the Geographical Jurisdiction of the division for absorption as skilled Artisans Gr.III in scale Rs. 950-1500 against 25% of direct recruitment quota alongwith serving casual labour artisans." This communication clearly indicates the manner in which a person whose services have been engaged as a Technical Mate on casual basis has to be treated. If this is the mode of providing an employment, then we fail to understand as to how the Chairman of the Railway Board could not apply the same to the appellant and give appropriate relief. Considering the long period of service the appellant had put in and the qualification possessed by her, namely, a diploma in technical subjects it would certainly entitle her to be absorbed as a skilled Artisan in Grade III in scale 950-1500 against post available in respect of direct recruitment quota. If this aspect had been borne in mind by the Chairman of the Railway Board, we do not think that he would have rejected the case of appellant. 3. The view taken by the Chairman of the Railway Board that there cannot be any designation assigned to a casual employee baffles all logic because there can be engagement of a peon on casual basis and there can be engagement of a clerk on casual basis and it cannot be said that both are casual employees and, therefore, there cannot be any distinction between a peon and a clerk as they are engaged on causal basis. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the view taken by the Chairman of the Railway Board was justified. 4. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the view taken by the Chairman of the Railway Board was justified. 4. Considering the number of occasions the appellant had approached the Tribunal and the authorities for relief, we do not think any useful purpose will be served by merely setting aside the ordered the authorities and remitting the matter to them. On the other hand, it would be an extraordinary case where we should direct the respondents to absorb the appellant as a skilled Artisan in Grade III in appropriate scale as indicted in the communication NO. P. (S)443/I/Miss/MP/MASNo. X of the Board and the benefit thereof should be given to the appellant. However, the appellant will not be entitled to any higher monetary benefits than what she was drawing hitherto. The appellant will be fitted in the appropriate scale by giving increments and continuity in service on that basis. These directions shall be given effect to within a period of three months from today." 15. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav-II, it was held by the Supreme Court that the provisional local promotion in projects would not vest the petitioners (therein) the right either to continue in the project or to resist reversion back to the cadre or to enjoy higher promotion since they were regularised in substantive post of Khalasi in Group-D open line division. It was further held that since the petitioners (therein) had passed trade test to achieve promotional level in a particular project, on their reposting to the parent cadre, they would be entitled to the same pay as their contemporaries unless the post held by the contemporary employees is by selection. It was further observed that the requirement of taking a trade test for promotion to Group C would be dispensed with, if the petitioners had already taken any comparable test while on duty in the projects. 16. Inder Pal. II was followed subsequently by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhardei Rai. That was a case where the appellant (therein) was initially engaged in the railways on daily wages as Khalasi in the year 1979. He was given temporary status on that post w.e.f. 1.1.1982. He was granted promotion purely on ad hoc basis on 31.1.1985 to the post of Rigger. That was a case where the appellant (therein) was initially engaged in the railways on daily wages as Khalasi in the year 1979. He was given temporary status on that post w.e.f. 1.1.1982. He was granted promotion purely on ad hoc basis on 31.1.1985 to the post of Rigger. For a period between 1985 and 1999 (14 years), the appellant continued to work on the promoted post of Rigger carrying higher scale of pay though the post of Rigger was Group C post but the appellant was regularised and absorbed in lower Group-D post vide order dated 5.10.1999. This was challenged by the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal who vide their order dated 17.11.1999 rejected the appellant's claim of absorption and continuation on the higher Group-C post. The order came to be challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court applied Inder Pal. II and held thus : "9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find that claim of the appellant deserves to be partly allowed on the basis of judgments of this Court in a somewhat similar situation in the case of Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India . In the case of Inder Pal Yadav this Court held that since promotion from Group 'C' to Group 'D' was ad hoc, the order of reversion to the post in the parent department cannot be questioned. This Court, however, held that although the order of reversion from promoted post in project to substantive post in regular line is unquestionable, the appellant, in any case, is entitled to pay protection. The relevant part of the order of this Court in Inder Pal Yadav case reads thus : (SCC p. 303, paras 6-7). "6. However, while the petitioners cannot be granted the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition, namely, that they should not be reverted to a lower post or that they should be treated as having been promoted by reason of their promotion in the projects, nevertheless, we wish to protect the petitioners against some of the anomalies which may arise. if the petitioners are directed to join their parent cadre or other project, in future. It cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners have passed trade tests to achieve the promotional level in a particular project. if the petitioners are directed to join their parent cadre or other project, in future. It cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners have passed trade tests to achieve the promotional level in a particular project. Therefore, if the petitioners are posted back to the same project they shall be entitled to the same may as their contemporaries unless the posts held by such contemporary employees at the time of such reposting of the petitioners is based on selection. 7. Additionally, while it is open to the Railway Administration to utilise the services of the petitioners in the open line, they must for the purpose of determining efficiency and fitment take into account the trade tests which may have been passed by the petitioners as well as the length of service rendered by the petitioners in the several projects subsequent to their regular appointment." 10. In the case of the present appellant, the aforesaid directions squarely apply. The appellant had to undergo a screening test in the year 1995 and in the result declared in 1997, the appellant had qualified. A long period of twenty years has been spent by the appellant on a higher post of Rigger in Group 'C' post. In such circumstances, he is legitimately entitled to the relief of pay protection and consideration of his case for regular appointment to Group 'C' post on the basis of his long service in Group 'C' post. 11. Relying, therefore on the decision of this Court in the case of Inder Pal the present appeal is partly allowed by modifying the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and of the High Court. It is directed that the appellant's pay which he was last drawing on the date of his repatriation from Group 'C' post of Group 'D' post, shall be protected. It is further directed that the appellant shall be considered for promotion to Group 'C' post in his turn with others, with due regard to the fact of his having passed the screening test and his work and performance for long twenty years on the post of Rigger in Group 'C'." 17. It is further directed that the appellant shall be considered for promotion to Group 'C' post in his turn with others, with due regard to the fact of his having passed the screening test and his work and performance for long twenty years on the post of Rigger in Group 'C'." 17. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India & others v. Deen Dayal Gupta & Others (supra) was concerned with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur whereby the direction was issued to the railway administration to regularise the respondents from the date of their appointment as Material Chasing Clerk (MCC) with all consequential benefits. Setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court noticed that the respondents therein were initially engaged as casual labour; that they were granted temporary status of gangman in the year 1972 and were sent on deputation in the year 1976 with the construction organisation. The respondents accepted the said assignment without they demur. In the construction division, they were asked to work on adhoc basis as MCC. It was held that the respondents could be given promotion only in parent department wherein they were in Group-D. On deputation post, they have no right to be considered either for promotion or absorption. 18. From the afore noticed judgments, it is clear that the engagement by the railway administration on casual labour (on Group-D or Group-C post) is not unknown. It seems to be frequently done by 'the railway administration. As a matter of fact, Chapter XX of Indian Railway Establishment Manual deals with the employment of casual labour. It is seen therefrom that the casual labour on railways is employed in two type of cases, namely; open line and project. On completion of work of particular number of days, the entitlement and privileges admissible to such casual labour are provided. Paragraph 2007 deals with the employment of casual labour in skilled categories and it provides that normally casual labour should not be appointed in the skilled category without a trade test. A panel should be maintained by the open line to cater to the need of the casual labour in semi-skilled and skilled categories. Paragraph 2007 deals with the employment of casual labour in skilled categories and it provides that normally casual labour should not be appointed in the skilled category without a trade test. A panel should be maintained by the open line to cater to the need of the casual labour in semi-skilled and skilled categories. It further provides that where no panel of suitable candidates is available, engagement in semi-skilled or skilled categories may be done without trade test but it should be ensured that the suitability for semi-skilled or skilled is adjudged well in time they attain the temporary status. A careful perusal of Paragraph 2007 would show that there is no bar as such to appoint casual labour in skilled categories i.e. Group-C posts. It only provides that normally the appointment of casual labour in skilled categories must be after successful trade test. Even for that an exception is carved out that where no panel of suitable candidates is available, engagement in skilled categories may be done without trade test. In the case of V.M. Chandra, the Supreme Court held that the appellant therein who was engaged as a technical mate on casual basis was entitled to be absorbed as a skilled artisan in Group III in the scale 950-1500 against the post available in respect of direct recruitment quota. Even in the case of Moti Lal, upon which strong reliance was placed by the counsel for the railway administration, the Supreme Court did not disturb the regularisation of the respondents therein in Class III post since they continued in Class III post for more than 22 to 25 years. It was held that the respondents who were directly appointed as mate though on causal basis and having continued as such for more than 22 to 25 years, it would be wholly inequitable to regularise them against the post of Gangman in Class IV. In our considered view, since the employee challenged his regularisation on the post of Gangman in Group-D earlier by filing OA 231/1997 which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 31.7.1997, the railway administration having not challenged that order has to abide by the said order and act accordingly. In our considered view, since the employee challenged his regularisation on the post of Gangman in Group-D earlier by filing OA 231/1997 which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 31.7.1997, the railway administration having not challenged that order has to abide by the said order and act accordingly. Neither in the reply to the OA No. 501/1997 nor in the reply to the present writ petition, the railway administration has placed material showing that the directives of the Tribunal contained in the order dated 31.7.1997 have been implemented. The controversy concerning regularisation of the employee has to be brought to an end by adherence to the directives contained in the order dated 31.7.1997 passed by the Tribunal since neither of the parties challenged the said order. 19. In what we have said above, we find that the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the impugned order were totally unjustified. 20. Consequently, we dispose of this writ petition by the following order: (i) The railway administration (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) shall act in accord with the directives contained in the order dated 31.7.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and OA 231/1997 - Pati Ram v. Union of India & Others and re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation accordingly. In other words, the railway administration (respondents No.1 to 3) shall draw up a common seniority list of all those eligible persons for consideration for regularisation on the post of Driver in the division as on 31.7.1997. After the said list is drawn up and if the petitioner is found, on the basis of his seniority, eligible for appointment on the post of Driver, he shall be considered for regularisation in accordance with item (ii) of para 3 of the Railway Board's Circular dated 9.4.1997 and appropriate order shall be issued. (ii) If the petitioner has already taken trade test for Group-C post successfully, any further trade test for his regularisation in the post of Group-C shall stand dispensed with. (iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as early as possible and in no case later than 31st December, 2007. (iv) The impugned order dated 8.12.2000 stands modified in afore-stated terms. (v) The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition disposed of. *******