JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, all these petitions are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 17.01.2014 passed in Original Application No. 105 of 2013 with Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2013 and also order dated 18.05.2015 passed in Review Application No. 1 of 2015, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said application preferred by the petitioner herein - original applicant, petitioner herein - original applicant has preferred present Special Civil Application No. 15623 of 2015. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 17.01.2014 passed in Original Application No. 104 of 2013 with Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2013 and also order dated 18.05.2015 passed in Review Application No. 2 of 2015, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said application preferred by the petitioner herein - original applicant, petitioner herein - original applicant has preferred present Special Civil Application No. 15624 of 2015. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 20.03.2015 passed in Original Application No. 358 of 2015 with Miscellaneous Application No. 377 of 2013, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said application preferred by the petitioner herein - original applicant, petitioner herein - original applicant has preferred present Special Civil Application No. 20764 of 2015. 3. For the sake of convenience, facts in Special Civil Application No. 15623 of 2015 arising out of the Original Application No. 105 of 2013 are narrated. 3.1. 3. For the sake of convenience, facts in Special Civil Application No. 15623 of 2015 arising out of the Original Application No. 105 of 2013 are narrated. 3.1. That the original applicant approached the Tribunal, by filing Original Application No. 105 of 2013 inter alia prayed for following reliefs: "A. Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to admit and allow the present application; B. It may please be held, declared and directed that the applicant treated/is entitled to the pensionary benefits, treating him as appointed from initial date of Vendor i.e. from July 23, 1971 (23.07.1971) notionally deemed effect by calculating entire service as qualifying service or 50% (Fifty percent) as qualifying service from the date of appointment as Vendor till regular absorption, followed by regular appointment in Railway service with all consequential benefits, including pensionary scheme/family pension as available to the Railway employees prior to January 01, 2004 (01.01.2004)" 3.2. It was the case on behalf of the original applicant that looking to the inordinate delay caused by the respondent in implementing/acting upon the scheme of absorption of Vendors in catering department in Regular Railway service, has resulted in denial of the benefits in pension rules as on January 01, 2004, there being short period of service left, in their retirement. Therefore, it was requested to declare that the applicant is entitled to pensionary benefits, treating him as appointed from initial date of vendor i.e. from July 23, 1971 notionally with deemed effect by calculating entire service as qualifying service or 50% as qualifying service from the date of appointment as Vendor till regular absorption, followed by regular appointment in Railway service with all consequential benefits, including pensionary scheme/family pension as available to the Railway employees prior to January 01, 2004. 3.3. That by impugned common judgment and order, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad had dismissed the said application. Similar, common judgment and order is passed in other original applications also dismissing the original applications preferred by the respective original applicants, arising out of it, other Special Civil Applications are preferred. 4. Ms. Kamani, learned advocate has appeared for Shri P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the respective petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 15623 of 2015 and 15624 of 2015. Shri Gogia, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20764 of 2015. 5. 4. Ms. Kamani, learned advocate has appeared for Shri P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the respective petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 15623 of 2015 and 15624 of 2015. Shri Gogia, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20764 of 2015. 5. Learned advocates for the respective original applicants have vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not considering the fact that respective applicants were working in catering department as commission vendors since 1971 and working continuously till they retired. It is submitted that therefore, when they were absorbed in the regular catering work belatedly because of the inaction on the part of the department, their past services were required to be considered for the purpose of pensionary benefits and other benefits as if the respective applicants are in continuance service since 1971. It is submitted that as such the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application on the ground of limitation. It is further submitted by learned advocates for the respective original applicants that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that this is a case of granting pensionary benefits to the original applicants who have retired in 2009 but his past service from 1971 are required to be considered. 5.1. It is further submitted by learned advocates for the original applicants that the learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate that the petitioner was regular employee from 2007 and therefore, the service rendered by them from the initial appointment till they were made regular was required to be counted for pensionary service on the date of regularization till superannuation in the year 2009. 5.2. It is further submitted by learned advocates for the original applicants that in last 20 years number of vacancies had arisen where the petitioners could be regularized. However, the claim of the petitioners were not considered for number of years which deprived not only the other benefits of regular employee but had also deprived them the retirement benefit and pension. 5.3. However, the claim of the petitioners were not considered for number of years which deprived not only the other benefits of regular employee but had also deprived them the retirement benefit and pension. 5.3. Shri Gogia, learned advocate for one of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1190 of 2006 whereby the Bombay High Court confirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in OA No. 238 of 2004, by which, view was taken that 50% of the service/period rendered by them as commission Vendors was required to be calculated as qualified service towards pension along with service rendered by them as regular employee of the Railway. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present petition. No other submissions have been made. 6. All these petitions are opposed by Shri Anal Shah, learned advocate for the respective respondents. In each of the petitions, affidavit in replies are filed. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that as such there was suppression of material facts on the part of the respective petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 15623 of 2015 and 15624 of 2015 that earlier Special Civil Application No. 4422 of 2001 was filed by Shankuntalaben P Gajjar and others (including petitioner) before this Court challenging the circular dated 21.5.2001 issued by the Railway Administration directing the commission vendors attached to the circular, to appear for screening test to be held on 26.06.2001 to ascertain their suitably for absorption in railway service. It is submitted that in the aforesaid Special Civil Application it was the specific case that they do not want to appear in the screening test for absorption in railway service and that they should be allowed to continue to work as a commission vendor. It is submitted that initially this Court granted ad-interim relief in the said Special Civil Application whereby operation, implementation and execution of the circular dated 21.5.2001 was stayed. It is submitted that thereafter the said Special Civil Application came to be withdrawn and ad-interim relief granted stood vacated. It is submitted that the aforesaid was neither disclosed before the Tribunal nor even before this Court in the present Special Civil Applications. It is submitted that thereafter the said Special Civil Application came to be withdrawn and ad-interim relief granted stood vacated. It is submitted that the aforesaid was neither disclosed before the Tribunal nor even before this Court in the present Special Civil Applications. It is submitted that thereafter and subsequently withdrawal of the aforesaid petition, the process of absorption of the commission vendors was undertaken progressively and thereafter accordingly the petitioners came to be absorbed as regular employee on the post of "Lift Attendant". It is submitted that thereafter on attaining the age of superannuation, the respective petitioners have retired in the year 2009. It is submitted that at the time when the respective petitioners were absorbed as regular employee, the new pension scheme had already come into effect. It is submitted that therefore, prayers sought by the petitioners that they ought to be considered as regular employee notionally since 23.07.1971 and all benefits ought to be granted as available to other employees prior to 01.01.2004 cannot be granted and as such same is rightly denied by the learned Tribunal. Making above submissions and relying upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respective respondents, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respective petitioners have prayed for aforesaid reliefs on the ground that because of the delayed action on the part of the concerned department/respondent in not absorbing them and not regularizing their services in time, they are denied the benefits of their past service and consequently it has affected their pension and retirement benefits and therefore, it is prayed to grant benefit which may be available to the respective regular employees from the date of the initial appointment i.e. 1971. However, considering the affidavit in reply, it appears that there was no delay on the part of the department in not initiating process for regularizing the services of the respective applicants and others. On the contrary, the process was started by issuing circular dated 21.05.2001. However the same was challenged by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4422 of 2001 and they specifically pleaded that they do not want to appear in the screening test for absorption in railway service. On the contrary, the process was started by issuing circular dated 21.05.2001. However the same was challenged by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4422 of 2001 and they specifically pleaded that they do not want to appear in the screening test for absorption in railway service. They obtained the stay order against the implementation and operation of the circular dated 21.05.2001 and therefore, process for regularization could not be further taken. However, subsequently the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 4422 of 2001 came to be withdrawn and consequently stay was vacated and thereafter the process was started in the year 2007-08 and thereafter the respective petitioners came to be absorbed in service. The aforesaid is suppressed by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal as well as before this Court. In any case, in view of the above, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the department in not considering the case of the respective applicants for regularization of their services and/or absorption. 7.1. That in the meantime, the pension scheme came to be revised and under the revised pension scheme, the respective applicants were not entitled to retirement benefits in absence of any qualifying service. Therefore, they prayed to grant benefit of regular employee from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 1971. Such relief is sought after the respective petitioners retired on attaining the age of superannuation and as such after more than three years of their retirement and after number of years. It is required to be noted that prior to the retirement, the respective applicants did not pray for the aforesaid relief. Therefore, there was inordinate delay and laches also. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even subsequently the case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20764 of 2015 was considered for absorption, however his case was rejected as by the time he became the over age. 7.2. Therefore, there was inordinate delay and laches also. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even subsequently the case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20764 of 2015 was considered for absorption, however his case was rejected as by the time he became the over age. 7.2. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the respective petitioners are not entitled to any relief as sought in the present petitions, more particularly, relief sought in the Original Application, more particularly, to grant all the benefits which may be available to the regular employees including retirement benefits from the date they were initially appointed in the year 1971, more particularly, when they were absorbed in the service after completing requisite procedure/process on the post of "Lift Attendant" in the year 2007-08. 8. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Bombay High Court confirming the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, upon which, reliance has been placed, by the learned advocate for the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20764 of 2015 is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that learned advocate for the petitioner has fairly conceded that in view of subsequent development and the decision, the aforesaid decision shall not be of any assistance to the petitioners. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged.