JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. All these O.P.(CAT)'s arise out of a common order dated 28.9.2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. As the issue involved in all these O.P.(CAT)'s is the same, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The applicants before the Tribunal – 46 in number in O.P.(CAT).No.286/2017, 44 in number in O.P.(CAT).No.293/2017 and 99 in number in O.P.(CAT).No.306/2017, had approached the Tribunal aggrieved by a cut-off date that was fixed in relation to the service rendered by casual labourers under the Postal Department in the State of Kerala in connection with a preferential recruitment to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak [GDS]. It was the case of the applicants before the Tribunal that while, by a letter dated 6.6.1988 of the Director General of Posts, a preference was envisaged to casual labourers for recruitment to the post of GDS [earlier referred to as 'Extra Departmental Agents'], the Government of India, in the Ministry of Communications & IT Department of Posts had, by a communication dated 14.1.2015 decided, based on the recommendations of the DKS Chauhan Committee, inter alia to restrict the preference accorded to casual labourers in GDS posts to only those who had been engaged either on full time or part time basis on or before 1.9.1993. The applicants, being persons who had been engaged as casual labourers under the Postal Department after 1.9.1993, impugned the imposition of the cut-off date on the contention that a vested right that had been recognised in their favour by the earlier departmental letter dated 6.6.1988 could not be taken away unilaterally by the Government. It was the contention of the applicants that inasmuch as the casual labourers under the Postal Department in the State formed a homogeneous class, the arbitrary fixation of a cut-off date of 1.9.1993 had to be seen as restricting the benefit of preferential appointment to one category of casual labourers to the exclusion of others who were similarly placed, and that this classification violated the provisions of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. It was their further contention, in connection with the challenge raised in the Original Applications against the notification issued by the Postal Department inviting applications for recruitment as GDS under the open category that such open recruitment could be resorted to only in the absence of candidates for preferential appointment from among the category of casual labourers. In effect, their contention was that if the artificial cut-off date of 1.9.1993 was ignored, then all the persons working as casual labourers would be entitled for consideration of their candidature for preferential appointment as GDS to the vacancies notified by the Postal Department, and in that event, there would be no occasion for resorting to an open recruitment. 3. On behalf of the Central Government, it was contended that the decision taken to restrict the preferential appointment to only those casual labourers that were engaged upto 1.9.1993, was against the backdrop of the decision of the Central Government that after 1.9.1993, only daily rated/hourly rated workers would be engaged on need basis for execution of urgent works. The contention, in otherwords was that, after the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Scheme'] promulgated by the Department of Post and Telegraph for regularisation of casual workers, there was a ban for engaging casual workers for works of regular nature. The cut-off date of 1.9.1993 was sought to be justified by the Central Government on the above contentions. 4. The Tribunal, after hearing the rival submissions, accepted the contention of the Central Government and found that the cut-off date of 1.9.1993 was neither unreasonable nor lacked reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In particular, it was found that it was in the light of the 1993 Scheme of the Central Government that virtually brought a halt to the system of engaging casual labourers for regular posts and provided temporary status to those casual labourers who fulfilled the stipulated conditions prior to regularisation, that the Scheme was brought into force by the Central Government. The O.A.'s were thus dismissed by the Tribunal. 5. Before us, it is the submission of Sri. The O.A.'s were thus dismissed by the Tribunal. 5. Before us, it is the submission of Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan, the learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P. (CAT).Nos.286 of 2017 and 293 of 2017 and Sri.M.M.Monaye, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P.(CAT).No.306 of 2017 that the casual labourers, whether engaged prior to 1.9.1993 or thereafter, constituted a homogeneous class and hence, a differential and preferential treatment to one section of persons to the exclusion of others by introducing a cut-off date of 1.9.1993 was violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India – [( 1983 1 SCC 305 ], V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and Another -[ (1998) 8 SCC 30 ], State Bank of India v. L. Kannaiah and Others – [ (2003) 10 SCC 499 ] and Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. N. Subbarayudu and Others – [ (2008) 14 SCC 702 ] in support of the said contention. 6. In response to the stand taken on behalf of the Central Government based on the letter dated 1.8.2016 issued by the Assistant Director General (GDS), Department of Posts (GDS Section), Government of India, directing the stoppage of selection/engagement of all types of GDSs with immediate effect, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if a policy decision has been taken by the Central Government not to continue with the recruitment of GDSs based on the erstwhile Recruitment Rules that provided inter alia for preferential appointment to casual labourers, the vacancies that had arisen during the time when the Old Rules/Executive orders held the field, had to be filled in accordance with the said Rules/orders and not the new Rules/orders that have since come into effect. 7. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Central Government that the casual labourers did not constitute a homogeneous class and the cut-off date of 1.9.1993 that was stipulated was based on the criteria adopted by the Central Government for stoppage of engagement of casual labourers in the Department. 7. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Central Government that the casual labourers did not constitute a homogeneous class and the cut-off date of 1.9.1993 that was stipulated was based on the criteria adopted by the Central Government for stoppage of engagement of casual labourers in the Department. The contention, in otherwords, is that the casual labourers engaged prior to 1.9.1993 formed a separate class of persons who had enjoyed the benefit of working as casual labourers till the date on which the decision of the Central Government to stop such engagement was taken. It is argued therefore that casual labourers working prior to 1.9.1993 and those that were engaged thereafter do not constitute a homogeneous category, and therefore, the contention of the petitioners to the contrary was only to be rejected. On the aspect of the vacancies arising to the post of GDS being filled up only in accordance with the Rules in force on the date of arising of the vacancy, reliance is placed on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others - [JT 2022 (5) SC 516] to point out that the earlier view taken by the Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao - [ (1983) 3 SCC 284 ] has since been reversed, and it has now been categorically held that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose. It is the specific case of the respondents that all the vacancies earlier notified but not filled thus far and all future vacancies will be filled only in terms of the new Rules/orders. 8. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that in the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra), we may not need to labour much on the issue of whether the prescription of the cut-off date of 1.9.1993 was justified in the instant case. The law as clarified by the Supreme Court is that there is no mandate that the vacancies existing must be filled in accordance with the Rules in force at the time of arising of the vacancies. The law as clarified by the Supreme Court is that there is no mandate that the vacancies existing must be filled in accordance with the Rules in force at the time of arising of the vacancies. The stand of the respondents before us is quite clear that a decision has been taken by them not to proceed with the notifications issued calling for the open recruitment, and further that future appointments to the said vacancies will only be based on the new Rules/orders that are currently in vogue. 9. Before parting, and only since the learned counsel for the petitioners had argued the point elaborately before us, we might observe that we are also not persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the casual labourers engaged before and after 1.9.1993 constituted a homogeneous class for the purpose of seeking preferential appointment to the post of GDS. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel are clearly distinguishable on facts since they all relate to instances where a classification was sought to be made between persons who had all satisfied the conditions for obtaining the right in question, such as pensioners who had all obtained the right to pension after putting in the required years of qualifying service. In the instant case, however, the cut-off date was prescribed with a view to limit the persons who would obtain the right to preferential appointment based on years of casual engagement, with the right being granted to only those who had put in more years of such service as casual labourers. The cut-off date being introduced to limit the beneficiaries to a few based on their years of engagement on casual basis, and ending with the date on which the Central Government took a decision to stop the engagement of casual labourers for works of regular nature, we do not find the fixation of the cut-off date to be either arbitrary or discriminatory. The upshot of the above discussion is that we see no merit in these O.P.(CAT)'s and for the reasons stated by the Tribunal in the impugned orders, as supplemented by the reasons in this judgment, we dismiss the same. The O.P.(CAT)'s are dismissed.