JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 31.12.1997 passed by Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and against judgment and order dated 7.12.2004 whereby Original Application No. 1421 of 1998 filed by petitioners has been dismissed. 3. It appears that petitioners were engaged as casual labour (Black smith) in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur in the between 1978 to 1981. In 1982, petitioners were retrenched pursuant to Chief Engineer’s order dated 14th April, 1992. Thereafter, respondents further engaged some casual workers in a project and consequent thereto, petitioners were engaged as casual labour (Black smith). One of such order dated 24.11.1989 in respect to petitioner No. 3 is on record. Petitioners continued to work and after completion of six months, they were granted regular pay-scale as also temporary status. 4. Question of regularization was considered by Railway Board and we find that in this regard Railway Board issued a circular on 3.9.1996 and in reference thereto petitioners were also considered for regularization as Group-D employee and vide order dated 31.12.1997 petitioners were regularized in Group-D against newly created work-charged post. 5. Against aforesaid order dated 31.12.1997, original application was filed by petitioners before Tribunal, Gorakhpur on the ground that petitioners having discharged their duties as casual labour against posts which are in Group-C, they ought to have been regularized in Group-C and not Group-D post. 6. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for petitioners could not show any provision or rule under which a person could have been regularized in Group-C posts in Railway where all posts are liable to be filled in by promotion. For this purpose Tribunal has relied on a Full Bench Decision in Ram Kumar and others v. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15863 of 1984 wherein it was held that a Group-C post being a promotional post, a person even directly engaged on casual basis, cannot be regularized on such post but would be liable to be regularized in feeder cadre i.e against posts in Group D, as Group C post is an only promotional post and hence regularization of directly engaged persons is not permissible. No law otherwise has been shown to us so as to entitle petitioners for being regularized on a Group-C post directly. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners sought to rely on an order of Supreme Court dated 6.9.1990, passed in Civil Misc. Petition No. 31378 of 1988, Ram Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, (1987) SCALE (2) 1192, but from a perusal thereof, we find that statement was made by counsel for Railways in that matter, relying on Board’s instructions dated 20th January, 1985, that those people who were working for more than five years may be regularized in Class III post and on that statement, miscellaneous application was disposed of. 8. We may also notice here that subsequently similar issue has been considered by Supreme Court in General Manager Northern Railway and others v. Jageshwar and others (Civil Appeal No. 6413 of 2002) decided on 1.4.2009, wherein Jageshwar and two others were engaged as casual labour Gangmen. Their services were temporarily used as Mates in construction organization. The post of Mate was a Group-C post. Subsequently, when the three workers became surplus they were screened and optioned for absorption in Group-D post for which they consented and accordingly regularized in Group-D post in October, 1996 and September, 1997. These three workers i.e. Jageshwar and two others approached Central Administrative Tribunal contending that since they were working as Mates, a Group-C post, they ought to have been regularized in Group-C. Tribunal though did not accept contention that they should have been regularized as Group-C on the ground that Group-C post since are liable to be filled in only by promotion, no person can seek direct entry by way of regularization. However, relying on earlier Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Moti Lal, (1996) 7 SCC 48, Tribunal directed that pay drawn by those workers as Mate shall be protected as personal to them till they are promoted to Group-C post. Railway Department aggrieved by judgment of Tribunal came to High Court but writ petition was dismissed hence, matter came before Supreme Court. Railway Department aggrieved by judgment of Tribunal came to High Court but writ petition was dismissed hence, matter came before Supreme Court. It was held that judgment in Moti Lal (supra) was not applicable for the reason that casual appointment as Mate, a Group-C post, would give no benefit to such appointee since post of Mate is an exclusive promotional post and for that reason they were regularized in Group-D. In Moti Lal (supra) also it was held that in Railway, a person cannot seek regularization on Group-C post which is liable to be filled in by promotion and instead can be regularized only in Group-D post. Having said so Supreme Court said that in Moti Lal (supra) since in the mean time they were regularized as Mates hence their position was not disturbed by exercising power under Article 142 but that does not lay down a proposition of law and no person who has screened and absorbed in Group-D can claim any benefit against higher post whether in regard to pay-scale or otherwise. Paras 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment in General Manager Northern Railway and others v. Jageshwar (supra) are reproduced as under : “3. Motilal (supra) has no application. In that case, respondents were directly appointed as casual mates in Class III, though the post of made was an exclusive promotion post. They were regularized in a lower post. The Tribunal directed that they should be regularized as ‘mates’.This Court held that respondents were not entitled to be regularized in Group III posts. But having regard to their long service of 22 to 25 years, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 left their regularization as mates undisturbed making it clear that the direction should not be treated as precedent. 4. This Court in Motilal case (supra) did not lay down any proposition that when an employee is absorbed in a different organization, his previous pay should be protected. Absorption in Railways was not in pursuance of any legal right. To avoid hardship to the employees of the construction organization on humanitarian grounds, the Railways chose to consider the surplus labour of that organization for absorption after screening them. Absorption in Railways was not in pursuance of any legal right. To avoid hardship to the employees of the construction organization on humanitarian grounds, the Railways chose to consider the surplus labour of that organization for absorption after screening them. When being so screened and absorbed, an employee cannot counted that he should be absorbed in a post equivalent to a post he was holding in the previous organization nor could the Tribunal or High Court direct that his pay should be protected. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the orders of the High Court and Tribunal are set aside and as a consequence the original application is dismissed.” 9. In the present case, the matter is covered by Railway Board’s Circular dated 3.9.1996 which permits regularization only in Group D posts. Even otherwise when a post is liable to be filled in by way of promotion, persons engaged directly on casual basis can neither claim regularization nor can be so regularized against such posts which are to be filled in by promotion. 10. We, therefore, find no infirmity or illegality in the approach of Tribunal and finding recorded by it cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. We, therefore, find no patent irregularity or illegality in the order of Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed.