JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Award dated 27.08.2015 (published in the Gazette on 08.10.2015) passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference No. 165 of 1997, whereby petitioner is directed to regularise the services of the workman, if required, by creating a post with effect from date of reference. 2. From the arguments and pleading of the parties, it appears that the Respondent-workman was employed as a casual worker (Class-IV), w.e.f. February, 1986, in the office situated at Kishanganj. 3. It is admitted position that one of the employee, namely, Ganesh Jha (respondent) is working till date, whereas another employee, namely, Badami Devi, has died during pendency of the reference itself, has not been made party in the present writ petition. The order with regard to Badami Devi has attained finality, as the same has not been challenged. 4. It further appears that similarly situated employee has been regularised in service, in view of circular dated 06.05.1987 and 09.09.1996. So far office situated at Kishanganj is concerned, three persons were working namely, Ganesh Jha, late Smt. Badami Devi and Om Prakash Verma. Om Prakash Verma, has been regularised and transferred to another place, but Ganesh Jha and late Badami Devi have not been regularised and as such, Industrial Dispute has been raised which has been referred vide Reference No.165 of 1997. The terms of reference is as under:- “Whether the demand of the FCI Executive Staff Union, Patna for regularisation of service of Sh. Ganesh Jha and Smt. Badami Devi is legal and justified? If so, to what relief are the workers entitled and from which date.” 5. After completion of pleading and evidence, the finding has been recorded that the workmen has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and they have regularly worked since 1986 and further their claim are covered under circulars dated 06.05.1987 and 09.09.1996 and as such, reference has been answered in favour of the workman and direction has been issued for regularisation of the Ganesh Jha, from the date of reference against Class-IV post. In the case of late Smt. Badami Devi, order has been made for monetary benefits, as she has died during pendency of the reference. So far late Smt. Badami Devi is concerned, the direction issued in favour of late Smt. Badami Devi has attained finality. In the case of late Smt. Badami Devi, order has been made for monetary benefits, as she has died during pendency of the reference. So far late Smt. Badami Devi is concerned, the direction issued in favour of late Smt. Badami Devi has attained finality. 6. Order of regularisation of Ganesh Jha has been challenged by filing present writ petition. 7. Argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that since there is no vacant and sanction post available in the office at Kishanganj, where respondent has been employed and working and as such, no order for regularisation could have been passed. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and another reported in (2016) 1 SCC 521 . 9. On the strength of above judgment, it has been argued that claim for regularisation cannot be allowed in the absence of vacant and sanction post. Further, as per circular dated 06.05.1987, the respondent has not completed the required length of service and as such, he is not entitle for regularisation. 10. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has taken plea that as per circular dated 06.05.1987, an employee, who has completed three months service till cut of date i.e. 02.05.1986, was entitle for regularisation. The said circular has been reiterated in the same terms vide circular dated 09.09.1996. As per circular dated of 09.09.1996, the respondent fulfil the criteria of length of service. 11. So far as judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, workmen has worked only for two years and were out of employment for last 21 years. Para 17 of the above judgment Vice-Chancellor (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- “17. The respondents were merely casual workers and they do not have any vested right to be regularised against the posts. The High Court fell in error in affirming the award passed by the Labour Court directing regularisation. Para 17 of the above judgment Vice-Chancellor (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- “17. The respondents were merely casual workers and they do not have any vested right to be regularised against the posts. The High Court fell in error in affirming the award passed by the Labour Court directing regularisation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the respondents were out of employment for more than twenty years and now they are overaged and cannot seek for regular appointment, in our view, the interest of justice will be subserved if the judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent by directing payment of monetary compensation for the damages to the respondents.” 12. Counsel for the respondent-workman has relied upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Another Vs. Employer I/R To Management of Food Corporation of India and Another reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190 , wherein order of regularisation has been upheld. 13. In the present Case, the concerned workman has been employed by the petitioner in the office of Kishanganj in February 1986, and is working till date. As per circular of the year 1987 and 1996, employee is eligible for regularization. Objection raised by the petitioner that no post is available at Kishanganj is not tenable as availability of post in other offices within the same circle has not been denied. 14. Admittedly, one of the workmen namely Om Prakash Verma, appointed along with present respondent has been regularised and transferred to another office as the post was not available at Kishanganj. It is not the case of the petitioner that the post is not available in other offices. 15. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award dated 27.08.2015 passed in Reference No. 165 of 1997. 16. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.