JUDGMENT : Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J. 1. The respondent started his career in the Railways as a casual Gangman on 16.1.1979 and acquired status of a temporary employee on 1.1.1983. As per the policy of the Railways, having acquired temporary status the respondent was placed in a graded scale treating him as a Gangman. On 8.2.1984 his services were utilized in the construction organization of the Railways, where the respondent was posted as a Material Checking Clerk (MCC). On 11.2.1985 the respondent was regularized as a Gangman under the Ambala division. The post is a Group-D post. 2. Holding lien against a Group-D post of Gangman, the respondent continued to work as MCC. 3. Concededly, on 7/8.5.1987 the Railways took a decision that staff continuously working for three years as Clerks would be considered for re-gularization of service as Clerks irrespective of the regular post held by them provided they have worked as Clerks for a period of three years. 4. Concededly, the Railway authorities proceeded to give effect to their policy circular and called upon the respondent to participate in a viva-voce test. The respondent was not given permanent appointment as MCC and therefore he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 1st March, 2007. 5. The first contention of the petitioners is that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the policy circular dated 7/8.5.1987 for the reason he had not worked as MCC for a period of three years preceding the issuance of the circular. 6. But, learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that with effect from 8.2.1984, the respondent continuously worked as MCC. 7. Thus, it is obviously a case where by May, 1987 the respondent had worked as MCC for a period of three years. 8. The second contention advanced is that the respondent was never called for a viva-voce. This is incorrect for the reason Annexures A/12 and A/13 filed along with the Original Application are a proof of the fact that the respondent was called for a viva-voce test. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage changes tracks and relies upon the decisions reported as (1996) 7 SCC 134 Union of India & ors. v. Kishan Gopal Vyas, (1996) 7 SCC 481 Union of India & anr. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage changes tracks and relies upon the decisions reported as (1996) 7 SCC 134 Union of India & ors. v. Kishan Gopal Vyas, (1996) 7 SCC 481 Union of India & anr. v. Moti Lal & ors., (2005) 11 SCC 298 Bhadei Rai v. Union of India & ors. and (2005) 11 SCC 301 Inder Pal Yadav & ors. v. Union of India & ors. which hold that for purposes of appointment and re-gularization Class IV employees holding post such as casual mates, gang-man etc. could not be considered for appointment to Group-C post. 10. None of the decisions concerns the applicability of the circular dated 7/8.5.1987. 11. It is trite that a decision is a precedent where facts of a subsequent case are identical. The issue at hand is regarding respondent's entitlement under the policy circular of the year 1987. 12. Whilst it may be true that a person working on ad hoc or temporary basis against a post may not be entitled to regularisation on mere length of service, but where there is a policy the issue has to be decided with reference to the policy. Framing of policy for absorption of an existing employees working for long periods is not unknown in service jurisprudence. 13. There is no justification for the Railway authorities in not complying with their own circulars in the instant case. 14. For record we note statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that notwithstanding notice being issued in the writ petition on 22.8.2007 and operation of the impugned order stayed, respondent continues to work as MCC even as of today i.e. on the 2nd day of January, 2018. 15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 16. No costs.