ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The writ jurisdiction has been invoked by the employer against the Award dated 08.09.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 130 of 1996, whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner directing to regularize the services of the respondent in Group "D" post. 3. The petitioner-Food Corporation of India is a statutory body constituted by and under a statute called Food Corporation Act, 1964. It is wholly controlled by the Government of India. The respondent-workmen have been engaged at food storage depot at Belauri, Purnea, by the contractor for carrying out the work of handling and transport of food grain. The industrial dispute has been raised by the Union which has been referred vide Reference Case No. 130 of 1996. The terms of reference is as follows:- “Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna in not regularising the services of Sh. Ram Bilash Paswan and 9 others in the grade they are working is justified and legal? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled?” 4. It appears that the Industrial Dispute has been raised for nine workers. Their details are as follows:- S. No. Name of the Workman Date/Year of engagement 1. Shri Ram Bilas Paswan 1978 2. Shri Hari Bilas Paswan 1980 3. Smt. Daya Rani 1984 4. Smt. Sumitra Devi 1984 5. Shri Harendra Nath Biswas 1984 6. Shri Ram Deo Das 28.01.1986 7. Shri Mahadeo Paswan October, 1984 8. Shri Krityanand Mallik January 1980 9. Smt. Fulmati Devi January 1978 5. As per management, all have been engaged by the contractor in Gulabbagh Depot and on closer of Gulabbagh Depot they have been transferred to Belauri Depot in the district of Purnea, Bihar and they were working till date except Smt. Fulmati Devi who is dead. Petitioner-corporation has issued a circular dated 06.05.1987 for regularization of services of such casual worker who have completed three months of service on 02.05.1986. Petitioner-corporation has issued a circular dated 06.05.1987 for regularization of services of such casual worker who have completed three months of service on 02.05.1986. Clause 4 of the Circular is quoted herein-below:- “In view of the above decision of the Board of Directors, it has been decided to relax the ban on recruitment for filling in other Category-III and IV posts by considering full time casual/daily rated employee who have been performing duties of regular employee of the Corporation under FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 and who have completed three month periods of service as on 2.5.1986 and possess the requisite qualification etc. The casual employees who do not fulfil the conditions of employment for any entry level Category-III and IV posts shall be retrenched by paying retirement compensation as required under the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947. The age limit may, however, be relaxed by the competent authority as specified in Appendix-II of the FCI (Staff) regulations to the extent of service rendered by such casual employees in the Corporation on daily rated/casual basis. This decision shall not apply for part-time casual employees and casual labour/workers and they shall not be regularised.” 6. Thus, as per circular, workmen who have completed three months of service by 02.05.1986 and having the requisite qualification was eligible for regularisation otherwise there was mandate to retrench them by giving retrenchment benefit. 7. Admittedly, in the present case respondent-workmen have not been removed rather they have been allowed to work and they are working till date. Issue has been raised by the employer that they does not possess the requisite qualification i.e. 7th pass. The requirement of requisite qualification has been asserted on the basis of oral evidence of management witnesses. No circular or rules has been produced wherein requisite qualification of 7th pass is mandated. 8. On the other hand, workman had asserted that they are 7th pass but they are not in possession of the required certificate as they are the resident of Flood Prone Area and the certificate was not available but oral evidence has been made that they are 7th pass. Thus, requirement of 7th pass has been met by oral evidence. Reason for none availability of required document is plausible explanation as the Purnea is a Flood Prone Area where preservation of certificate is not possible. Thus, requirement of 7th pass has been met by oral evidence. Reason for none availability of required document is plausible explanation as the Purnea is a Flood Prone Area where preservation of certificate is not possible. Further their retention in the service also negates the contention of the employer that the concerned workmen are not required or not eligible for performing the job. 9. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and evidence brought on record and especially mandate of the circular dated 06.05.1987, the Tribunal has directed for regularisation of seven workmen out of nine workmen who fulfils the requirement as mandated by the circular. 10. It is also admitted position that the circular has been implemented and the benefit has been extended to the similarly situated person. In such scenario the employer cannot take plea that nobody can be allowed to occupy permanent post by regularisation. Equality and parity has to be maintained by the petitioner-corporation, the extended arm of the Central Government. 11. Once circular has been implemented and benefit has been given to the similarly situated person, the same cannot be denied to the present respondent-workmen. Selective application of circular is not permissible. Circular has to be complied equally to all eligible casual workmen as per mandate of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. 12. Counsel for the petitioner-corporation has relied upon judgments reported in Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and Another, 2016 (1) SCC 521 and State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others vs. District Bar Association, Bandipora, 2017 (3) SCC 410 . 13. On the strength of above judicial pronouncement, argument has been advanced, since petitioner-corporation is a Central Government Organization and as per the mandate of Uma Devi they cannot be regularised as their entry into the service is not in consonance with Article-14 of Constitution of India. 14. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents-workmen has relied upon the judgment reported in Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Another, 2014 (7) SCC 190 . On the strength of above judicial pronouncement, it has been contended that the circular dated 06.05.1987 has been implemented and benefit has been given to the similarly situated person and the same cannot be denied to the respondent-workmen. On the strength of above judicial pronouncement, it has been contended that the circular dated 06.05.1987 has been implemented and benefit has been given to the similarly situated person and the same cannot be denied to the respondent-workmen. This very circular has been considered in the Judgment of Hari Nandan Prasad (Supra) and the regularisation of the workmen on the strength of circular involved in the present writ petition, has been upheld. 15. In view of above discussion and judicial pronouncement, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly the same is, hereby, dismissed.