ORDER : P.NAVEEN RAO, J. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief: “…to issue Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to order dated 29/3/2021 in O.A.No.599 of 2019 and M.A.No.268 of 2021 on the file of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and quash the same by declaring illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and pass...” 2. The respondent was initially engaged as casual worker on 25.07.1986 and was working as Beldar on the basis of Hand Receipt/Work Order/Contract, in Central Public Works Department (C.P.W.D), South Zone-2, Hyderabad. The C.P.W.D., cleared 10 regular posts of work charged employees in Southern Region, for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05. To fill up the said vacancies, a Screening Committee was constituted. The Screening Committee prepared a seniority list dated 30.11.2007 of casual workers engaged by C.P.W.D., till 30.11.2007 on the basis of Hand Receipt/Work Order/Contract. In the said seniority list, respondent was shown at SI.No.1. By considering the suitability and seniority of candidates, the Screening Committee cleared 10 names, including the name of respondent. By proceedings dated 04.12.2007, respondent was temporarily appointed as Beldar in C.P.W.D. Having satisfied with the services rendered by respondent and on successful completion of probation period, his probation was declared vide proceedings dated 29.10.2010. The respondent was confirmed as Beldar, w.e.f., 05.12.2009 vide Office order dated 29.10.2010. On completion of 10 years of service, the respondent was granted first MACP benefit w.e.f. 05.12.2017, vide Office order dated 19.02.2018. 3. The seniority list of casual workers dated 30.11.2007, was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.839 of 2007. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.2010 set aside the seniority list dated 30.11.2007 and directed the respondents therein, “to revise the seniority list of casual workers based only on number of days the casual workers were engaged on Hand Receipt/Work Order basis and to fill the approved vacancies with the persons in the seniority list as revised”. Alleging that the said orders were not complied, the applicants therein filed Contempt Petition No.110 of 2012 in O.A.No.839 of 2007, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was informed that the applicants therein were appointed on regular basis. 4. Alleging that the said orders were not complied, the applicants therein filed Contempt Petition No.110 of 2012 in O.A.No.839 of 2007, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was informed that the applicants therein were appointed on regular basis. 4. It appears that the C.P.W.D. regularized the services of 18 casual workers, including the petitioner in O.A.No.839 of 2007, against 10 sanctioned posts. Simultaneously, the proposals were moved by the Union Head to C.P.W.D., to the Director General, C.P.W.D., to create additional posts to accommodate 8 casual workers whose services were regularized against 10 sanctioned posts. However, the proposal to create additional posts was rejected, which led to taking recourse to terminate the services of respondent herein, on the ground that in the revised seniority list, his name was shown at SI.No.21, whereas there were only 10 vacancies and therefore, he could not be accommodated and the appointment granted to him in the year 2007 was not sustainable and accordingly, he was restored to the status of casual worker. 5. Aggrieved by the termination from service/ reversion as casual labour orders dated 05.07.2019, the respondent herein filed OA/021/00599/2019 before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A., granting relief to respondent herein, by setting aside the order dated 05.07.2019 wherein he was restored to the status of casual worker. 7. We have heard learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for petitioners, and Sri G. Pavana Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The respondent acquired the status of a Government employee through his temporary appointment as Beldar vide order dated 04.12.2007 and was governed by provisions of rules regulating the services, as well as the protection granted by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. On temporary appointment as Beldar, he was kept on probation and on successful completion of probation period, his probation was declared vide proceedings dated 29.10.2010. Therefore, his services were confirmed and he became a permanent employee of the Central Public Works Department. A permanent employee is governed by Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 9. The mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is very clear. Once a person becomes a permanent employee, he cannot be removed or dismissed from service without following the due process of law. By the order dated 05.07.2019, the respondent was sought to be posted as casual worker. 9. The mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is very clear. Once a person becomes a permanent employee, he cannot be removed or dismissed from service without following the due process of law. By the order dated 05.07.2019, the respondent was sought to be posted as casual worker. Though the term used is reversion, there cannot be a reversion of a permanent employee working as Beldar, to that of a casual worker. There is no post of casual worker in the establishment of Central Public Works Department. Therefore, no person can be reverted to a non-existent post and no permanent employee can be reverted as a casual worker. Thus, though the order dated 05.07.2019 states ‘reversion as casual worker’, in law, the same amounts to termination/removal from service of Central Public Works Department. No permanent employee working in the Indian Government service can be removed from service without following the due process of law. 10. Except contending that for a temporary employee, the Article 311(2) of Constitution of India is not applicable, no other ground is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners, to contend that a permanent employee in Union Government services can be removed from service without following the principles laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The instant case is not the case of termination of a temporary employee. 11. The Tribunal held that the reversion as casual worker amounts to removal from service and therefore, it is in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Hon’ble Tribunal. 12. Even otherwise, the brief service particulars of the respondent show that he entered into service of C.P.W.D., in the year 1986 and after 23 years of service, he was granted regularization. Prima facie, it is seen that even now there is requirement of such service and the services of respondent were sought to be utilized as casual worker. Therefore, the question of termination of the services of respondent, mainly on the ground that posts were not sanctioned, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority. Thus, if there is requirement additional manpower, it is the responsibility of the competent authority to create posts and they cannot utilize the services of an employee for decades on casual basis. 13. Therefore, the question of termination of the services of respondent, mainly on the ground that posts were not sanctioned, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority. Thus, if there is requirement additional manpower, it is the responsibility of the competent authority to create posts and they cannot utilize the services of an employee for decades on casual basis. 13. Having regard to the facts noted above, we do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.