Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 4.7.1997, Annexure P-9, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the ground that they were engaged as Casual Labourers Skilled Carpenters on daily wages against work-charged posts in the year 1982. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been granted temporary statues and, therefore, the order terminating their services on 29.7.1989 is without any notice and reason and is, thus, illegal. 2. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that after termination of their services, they were engaged against the posts of Khalasis and they have been granted promotion as well. 3. The learned Tribunal found that the petitioners were engaged on work-charge establishment which is separate from the regular establishment. The work charged establishment is qualitatively different and employees of such establishment cannot claim parity with the regular establishment. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court Judgment, "State of Maharashtra v. Purushotam and Ors. "Jaswant Singh v. Union of India. It was found that since the work-charged establishment project had to be terminated because of the non-availability of further funds in the year 1990, therefore, the legality of the termination of the employment of the petitioners cannot be questioned. The grant of temporary status also has no relevance in regard to the termination as the temporary status so granted entitles the petitioners to certain privileges, but that does not guarantee immunity from termination. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment "Robert DSouza v. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr. 1982 (1) SLR-864", to contend that since the temporary status was granted to the petitioners, therefore, their services could not have been terminated. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any Rules/Instructions or paragraph from the Indian Railways Establishment Manual, that the services of a daily wager casual employee, who has been granted temporary status, cannot be terminated. 5. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any Rules/Instructions or paragraph from the Indian Railways Establishment Manual, that the services of a daily wager casual employee, who has been granted temporary status, cannot be terminated. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the grant of temporary status only enures certain benefits in respect of medical and travelling facilities and does not confer any immunity of termination of the services on completion of the work-charge project. 6. In Fact, in Robert D Souzas case (Supra), it has been pointed out that the casual labourer who has rendered six months continuous service would be placed in the category of temporary railway servant unless he is employed on work charged project. Since the petitioners were employed on work-charged project and their services were terminated because of the non-availability of further funds for the work charged project in the year 1990, therefore, the termination of services of the petitioner cannot be said to be in violation of the Rules and Instructions. 7. In view of the said fact, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 4.7.1997, Annexure P-9, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed.