Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. V.P. Rajendran, learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel representing the petitioner in W.P. No. 39878 of 2005, Ms. Aparna Nandakumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner in W.P. No. 2412 of 2008 and Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and have perused the records. 2. The contesting respondents, who were working as casual labours in the Railways between the year 1979 and 1984, moved the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, CAT] with Original Application being O.A. No. 610 of 2004 to set aside the order of the Assistant Personnel Officer, Divisional Railways, Madurai, in so far as fixing the upper age limit and consequently, to direct the petitioners to consider the claim of the applicants for screening the contesting respondents borne in the Live Register with reference to their upper age limit. .3. The petitioners filed a reply statement and stated that the upper age limit was fixed not with a view to restrict the chances of the applicants / contesting respondents but was fixed by the Railway Board in accordance with the powers vested on them under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was also stated that when a similar issue was taken in respect of Tiruchirappalli Division, the CAT agreed to the stand taken by the Railways and that the action of fixing upper age limit for screening / appointing ex casual labour is 33 years for general candidates and 36 years for OBCs and 38 years for SC / STs in respect of persons, who rendered service less than 120 days of casual labour. The CAT, however, by its order dated 24. 2005 in O.A. No. 610 of 2004, held that reducing the age limit by notification dated 21.01.2004 is in contravention of the orders of the Railway Board and, therefore, restored the age limit as indicated in the original notification dated 23. 2003 and fixing maximum age for candidates who have put in less than 120 days of service, was not valid. Under the notification dated 23. 2003, the age limit was relaxable upto 40 years for general category and 45 years for OBCs and SC/ST categories. In that view of the matter, the CAT gave a direction to consider the claim of the contesting respondents in terms of the notification dated 23. 2003. 4. Under the notification dated 23. 2003, the age limit was relaxable upto 40 years for general category and 45 years for OBCs and SC/ST categories. In that view of the matter, the CAT gave a direction to consider the claim of the contesting respondents in terms of the notification dated 23. 2003. 4. W.P. No. 39878 of 2005 wasadmitted on 112. 2005 and in the interim order, this Court recorded the undertaking given by the counsel Mr. L. Chandrakumar that he will not initiate any contempt proceedings. 5. However, subsequently, another set of workmen moved the CAT with O.A. No. 708 of 2005 seeking to challenge the distinction made between the casual labour, who had done 120 days of work and those who are having less than 120 days of work. The argument of the contesting respondents in that writ petition was that if age relaxation can be given to persons, who had done less than 120 days of work, there was no reason why the same relaxation should not be given to persons, who are having more than 120 days of work. The CAT allowed the case of the second batch of respondents by an order dated 08. 2007 and held that the age limit applicable to those who had done more than 120 days of casual service, is also applicable to persons, who are having less than 120 days. In that view, the CAT also relied upon the judgment of its Ernakulam Bench, which was upheld by the High Court of Kerala in W.P. (C) No. 30328 of 2004. It is against this order, the second writ petition being W.P. No. 2412 of 2008 was filed. When the matter came up for admission, we directed Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the respondents to take notice and also directed the earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 39878 of 2005 to be posted along with this case for hearing. .6. In view of the interconnectivity between the matters, the two writ petitions were heard together with the consent of both sides. 7. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the respondents to take notice and also directed the earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 39878 of 2005 to be posted along with this case for hearing. .6. In view of the interconnectivity between the matters, the two writ petitions were heard together with the consent of both sides. 7. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that fixing up the upper age limit is the prerogative of the employer and the CAT ought not to have interfered with the age limit fixed and in the second case, the CAT even removed the age limit even in respect of persons, who have rendered less than 120 days of service. 8. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner Railways had already moved the Kerala High Court against the similar orders, which was rejected by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. They have also produced a certified copy of the order of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.P. (C) No. 21777 of 2007 (S) dated 211. 2007 and prayed for rejection of the writ petitions filed by the Railways. .9. The Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, after dealing with the case of the similarly placed casual workmen on merits, also noted that the earlier order of the Division Bench in W.P. (C) No. 30832 of 2004 became final and it was not challenged before the Supreme Court. It was held in page 18 of the judgment which is as follows: ."Even if those circulars are not quashed, still, the applicants are entitled to get relief, as they were being absorbed on the strength of the judgment in Inder Pal Yadavs case (cited supra). The said judgment and the subsequent orders issued by the Railways do not prescribe any age limit in the matter of absorption. Only for the first time age limit was insisted after the issuance of the above said circulars. So, we declare that both the circulars will not apply to the absorption of casual labourers, who have completed 360 days service and are being absorbed as per the decision in Inder Pal Yadavs case (cited supra). Only for the first time age limit was insisted after the issuance of the above said circulars. So, we declare that both the circulars will not apply to the absorption of casual labourers, who have completed 360 days service and are being absorbed as per the decision in Inder Pal Yadavs case (cited supra). The Umadevis case (cited supra) has no application to the facts of this case, as in this case, the absorption is being made by the Railways as per the order of the Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadavs case (cited supra). The only dispute is regarding the age limit. The liability for absorption does not emanate from the order of the Tribunal." .10. The learned counsel appearing for the Railways was not able to explain as to how the Railways, without challenging the order passed by the Kerala High Court both on the earlier occasion as well as in the second occasion, can continue to litigate on the very same subject before various other Courts. Even otherwise, as pointed out by the Kerala High Court, no liability arises for the Railways for granting any employment. It was only when the screening is done, the case of these persons will have to be considered on merits without reference to the age limit. It must also be remembered that if a casual labourer in the Railways is engaged on periodical basis and subsequently, if his services were disengaged, even if his services were less than 240 days, he is liable to be considered for re-employment in terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, I.D. Act] and the Rules framed by the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act do not prescribe any maximum age limit for the purpose of offering re-employment. 11. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in rejecting both the writ petitions filed by the Union of India representing the Indian Railways and accordingly, they will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.