JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri B.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri A.K. Roy, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have been engaged as Volunteer Ticket Collectors during Ardh Kumbh Mela at Allahabad for the period 12.1.1982 to 28.1.1982. In respect of their engagement, the certificate has been filed, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In this way, they had worked for 17 days only. The petitioners alongwith other persons filed Original Application No. 873 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal for the claim of their re-engagement and regularization under the Railway Board’s letter dated 6.2.1990, but the same has been rejected vide order dated 19.12.1994. The petitioners alongwith others have filed appeal before the Apex Court, which was titled as ‘Shiv Shankar and others v. Union of India and others’. The contention of the petitioners is that they were the parties in the said appeal before the Apex Court. The appeal was disposed of by the Apex Court on 19.2.1996 by the following order : “Special leave granted. Learned counsel state that the matters are covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14756-67/93 and connected matters decided on 27.7.1995. The order of the Tribunal under appeal is, accordingly, set aside. The appeals are disposed of with the directions given in the case of Usha Kumari Anand; the respondents are directed to examine the case of the appellant in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 37 and 38 of the tribunal’s judgment in the matter. This should be done within six weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. In pursuance of the order of the Apex Court, the claim of the petitioners have been considered by the respondents and has been rejected vide orders dated 10.4.1996. The order in case of all the petitioners are same. One of the order in case of Ran Vijay Singh is reproduced herein below : No. CM-I/MT/ Divil. Rly. Manager’s CC/96 Office Dated: 10.4.1996 Northern Railway/ Allahabad Ran Vijay Singh, S/o Sh. B.R. Singh Village and Post-Rampart Dhamava, Distt. Allahabad Sub : Implementation of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 9606-9608, 16443-51, 17005-17017, 17148-17164, 17224-17230, 18608 of 96 in re. Rly. Manager’s CC/96 Office Dated: 10.4.1996 Northern Railway/ Allahabad Ran Vijay Singh, S/o Sh. B.R. Singh Village and Post-Rampart Dhamava, Distt. Allahabad Sub : Implementation of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 9606-9608, 16443-51, 17005-17017, 17148-17164, 17224-17230, 18608 of 96 in re. Shiv Shankar and others v. Union of India and others. In compliance of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said case, your case has been examined thoroughly in light of the judgments given in the case of Volunteer/Mobile Booking Clerks particularly (Miss) Usha Kumari Anand and others v. Union of India, ATR 1989 (2) CAT 37, etc. and it has been found that you have never worked under the scheme of Volunteer/Mobile Booking Clerks which was introduced in August, 1973 and it was discountinued on 14.8.1981 but extended upto 17.11.1986 with some conditions. Hence benefits under the above said judgment are not possible to be given to you. It is further informed that your alleged working days as well as working certificates are fake and also your certificate of working days has not been issued on the prescribed printed Casual Labour Service Card (duly machine numbered) by the competent authority as per extant rules. It is also relevant to mention here that the persons who were engaged as other than Mobile Booking Clerks, such as during Ardh Kumbh Mela etc. for short period etc. are nto M.B.Cs. and as per directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the SLP No. CC-2442 dated 7.4.1994 in re. Union of India and others v. Lalji Shukla and others, matter was considered by the Rly. and it was decided not to frame any scheme to re-engage and regularize such persons viz. Volunteers Ticket collectors etc. against statutory provisions which also hit the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Sd. Illegible (Divl. Rly. Manager (Comml.) Northern Railway, Allahabad.” The said order has not been challenged by the petitioners and attained finality. It is the case of the petitioners that similarly situated persons have filed Original Application No. 464 of 1997 and other connected original applications before the tribunal raising their grievances. The tribunal vide order dated 25.10.1999 has rejected their claim. The tribunal observed that the petitioners were engaged as Volunteer Ticket Collectors. It is the case of the petitioners that similarly situated persons have filed Original Application No. 464 of 1997 and other connected original applications before the tribunal raising their grievances. The tribunal vide order dated 25.10.1999 has rejected their claim. The tribunal observed that the petitioners were engaged as Volunteer Ticket Collectors. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Usha Kumari Anand, was the case of Mobile Booking Clerks and not the case of Volunteer Ticket Collectors and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said case is not applicable. The tribunal further observed that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neera Mehta and Usha Kumari Anand, if they belonged to the category of volunteers to help ticket checking staff, they were not entitled to the benefit of the scheme of volunteer/mobile booking clerks but were to be re-engaged as volunteer and absorbed against group ‘D’ vacancies in their turn. They were thus to be treated as casual labour and granted the benefit of the provisions of IREM and extent instructions of the Railway Board regarding casual labour. The applicants should thus be re-engaged if they have completed the period of work prescribed for grant of temporary status without any back wages. Those who have not completed the period required for conferment of temporary status should continue to be engaged as casual labour in preference to fresh faces and granted temporary status as and when they complete the prescribed period which will include the days of work already put in by them as volunteers. The tribunal further observed in paragraph 16 as follows : “16. The applicants had worked for a few days during Ardh Kumbh Mela in 1982 as volunteers to assist ticket checking staff. They appear to have staked a claim after issuance of instructions of Railway Board dated 6.2.90 regarding volunteer/mobile booking clerks. They are thus not covered by instructions of Railway Board dated 6.2.90 because they were engaged as volunteers to assist ticket checking staff only for a period of seventeen days. The claim is also barred by limitation as it was staked after a period of eight years. They are thus not covered by instructions of Railway Board dated 6.2.90 because they were engaged as volunteers to assist ticket checking staff only for a period of seventeen days. The claim is also barred by limitation as it was staked after a period of eight years. Their names may, however, be entered in the Live Register for casual labour after verification of their service so that they may be engaged if casual labours are required in preference to fresh faces and be considered for regularization in Group ‘D’ as and when their turn comes.” 4. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 2005, they have approached through the Union to the authority. The authority examined the case and passed the order dated 12.3.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The reasons for the rejection of the claim of the petitioners given in the order are as follows : “The Supreme Court judgment given in the above writ petition/SLP pronounced on 19.2.1996. The claimant are not Mobile Booking Clerks. For exploring the possibility of framing a scheme the matter was referred to Railway Board. Railway Board vide their letter No. E(NG)/II/93CL/NR/9SLP/Pt. A dated 26.5.94 has advised that it will not be possible to devise a scheme for re-engagement of the voluntary Ticket Collectors who were engaged only for short period on payment of packet allowance basis. The case of voluntary Ticket Collectors who bears no analogy with the case of Mobile Booking Clerks for whom a special scheme was work on for their re-engagement.” 5. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 1329 of 2008 seeking following reliefs : “i. That the respondents may be directed to re-engage the applicants as Group- D Employees and extend the same benefit which were given to the Employees similar to the applicants vide order of the Hon’ble Tribunal dated 25.10.1999 with all consequential benefits. ii. Any other order or direction which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice. iii. Award cost of the application.” 6. The tribunal has rejected the original application vide order dated 9.1.2009 on the ground that the claim of the petitioners is barred by latches and the explanation given is not sufficient to condone the delay. 7. iii. Award cost of the application.” 6. The tribunal has rejected the original application vide order dated 9.1.2009 on the ground that the claim of the petitioners is barred by latches and the explanation given is not sufficient to condone the delay. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is true that the order dated 10.4.1996 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad has not been challenged by the petitioners. But when the other similarly situated persons have approached the tribunal and the tribunal in the order dated 25.10.1999 has made some observation in favour of the applicants therein, namely that they can be re-engaged on preferential basis, the petitioners have approached for their claim through the Union in the year 2005 to the authority, which has been rejected in the year 2008, and thereafter the petitioners approached the tribunal in the year 2008 itself, therefore, the claim of the petitioners is not barred by latches. It is further submitted that since similarly situated persons had been given the right of re-engagement, therefore, the petitioners should also be considered for re-engagement. The right of the petitioners arose from the order of the tribunal dated 25.10.1999 passed in the case of similarly situated persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are entitled for the same benefit, which the similarly situated persons are entitled. The reliance has been placed to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others, 1982 (2) SLR 248 and to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Pandey v. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) ESC 1980 . 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that admittedly, the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 10.4.1996, by which the claim of the petitioner for re-engagement has been rejected. The cause of action has arose in the year 1996 and the petitioners ought to have raised their claim immediately thereafter. The order of the tribunal, in the case of the alleged similarly situated persons, has been passed on 25.10.1999 and even thereafter the petitioners have elapsed five years and approached the authority in the year 2005. The cause of action has arose in the year 1996 and the petitioners ought to have raised their claim immediately thereafter. The order of the tribunal, in the case of the alleged similarly situated persons, has been passed on 25.10.1999 and even thereafter the petitioners have elapsed five years and approached the authority in the year 2005. In the application filed in the year 2005, the order passed by the authority in the year 2008, rejecting the claim of the petitioners has not been challenged; the petitioners sought the relief by way of mandamus from the tribunal. Therefore, the cause of action, which arose in the year 1996, the claim made by way of original application in the year 2008 was highly barred by latches and the tribunal has rightly refused to condone the delay in filing the original application. He further submitted that the petitioners’ engagement was only for 17 days as Volunteers Ticket Collectors for the period 12.1.1982 to 28.1.1982, even though the certificate has been doubted, but even assuming it is to be correct, the petitioners have no right to claim re-engagement or regularization in the absence of any rules after the lapse of more than 30 years. The decision in the case of Usha Kumari Anand was relating to the Mobile Booking Clerks and not to the Volunteers Ticket Collectors. He further submitted that the petitioners’ engagement was not following the proper procedure and their engagement was made as casual labour and, therefore, in view of the decision of constitution bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , the petitioners have no legal right to claim their re-engagement or regularization. He further submitted that casual labour can only claim the regularization under the railway regulation, in case, if he completed 180 days service as casual labour attaining the status of temporary employee and thereafter the temporary employee is entitled for claim of regularization. This situation is not available to the petitioners, inasmuch as for the petitioners the Board has not issued any scheme for their re-engagement and regularization. This situation is not available to the petitioners, inasmuch as for the petitioners the Board has not issued any scheme for their re-engagement and regularization. He further submitted that some of the Volunteers Ticket Collectors have approached before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2445 of 2003, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 9.10.2002 denying the claim of their re-engagement and regularization, has been dismissed on 14.2.2012. Copy of the order of this Court dated 14.2.2012 has been annexed alongwith supplementary-affidavit. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. We do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and any merit in the claim of the petitioners as well as any error in the impugned order of the tribunal. We are of the view that the cause of action has arose in the year 1996. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 16.4.1996 in pursuance of the direction given by the Apex Court. The said order has not been challenged at any stage and attained finality. The petitioners ought to have challenged the said order before the appropriate authority immediately thereafter. Even in the case of alleged similarly situated persons the original application has been rejected on 25.10.1999. The petitioners for the first time have raised their claim in the year 2005, which has been rejected in the year 2008, but no proper explanation has been given for not raising their claim immediately after 1996 and further after the order of the tribunal dated 25.10.1999. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly rejected the original application of the petitioners as barred by latches. 11. We further find that the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , has held that daily wagers and casual labours have no right to claim their re-engagement and regularization in the absence of any rules. No such rules have been placed before us under which the petitioners’ claim for re-engagement and regularization could be considered. The petitioners are not able to demonstrate that their engagement as casual labours was in accordance with the provisions of the railway rules. The engagement was only for 17 days appears to be in exigencies during Ardh Kumbh Mela. No such rules have been placed before us under which the petitioners’ claim for re-engagement and regularization could be considered. The petitioners are not able to demonstrate that their engagement as casual labours was in accordance with the provisions of the railway rules. The engagement was only for 17 days appears to be in exigencies during Ardh Kumbh Mela. For the re-engagement and regularization of such casual labours neither any rule nor any regulation has been provided. We have considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others, 1982 (2) SLR 248 and to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Pandey v. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) ESC 1980 , both the cases are distinguishable on the facts of the case and are not applicable to the present case. 12. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed, accordingly. —————