JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ. 1. This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6609/2013 and other 2(two) connected writ petitions. The appellant in WP(C) No.6609/2013 has prayed for the following relief:- “In the premises aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to issue notice on the respondents to show cause as to why this Hon’ble Court should not issue a writ thereby quashing endorsement dated 07-09-2012 issued by the respondent no.3 and further direct the respondents to initiate appropriate steps within a stipulated time frame to consider the members of the petitioner union for regularization of their services and upon consideration of the causes shown, if any, and upon hearing the parties and on perusal of records, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/orders quashing the impugned endorsement dated 07-09-2012 issued by the respondent no.3 and further direct the respondents to initiate appropriate steps within a stipulated time frame to consider the members of the petitioner union for regularization of their services in accordance with the law and or be pleased to pass such other order, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the members of the appellant Union, who are working as Casual Labourers in Border Roads Organization (BRO) had filed Civil Rule No.1893/1993 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 27.08.1996, whereby directions were passed by the learned Single Judge to take steps for regularization of the services of the members of the appellant Union, who had rendered more than 5(five) years in service. The said directions were required to be complied with within a period of6(six) months from the date of passing of the order by the Writ Court. The said directions were required to be complied with within a period of6(six) months from the date of passing of the order by the Writ Court. The Union of India assailed the said order passed by the learned Single Judge by way of a writ appeal, which came to be disposed of by issuing direction to the Union of India to consider the case of the employees, who are working in the Organization for more than 5(five) years, in view of the Circulars holding the field for regularization of their services, with further direction that the casual labourers so engaged shall be allowed to continue to work in the Organization till they attain their eligibility for coming within the purview of the Circular holding the field for regularization of their services. 3. The said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the said challenge vide order dated 19.02.1999 and remanded back the matter to this Court by restoring the writ appeal filed by the Union of India to reconsider the same on merits. This Court, in turn, has disposed of the said writ appeal vide order dated 27.03.2001 directing the Union of India to consider the cases of the members of the appellant Union in terms of the Scheme contained in the Office Memorandum dated 02.02.2001 and to consider the cases of the Casual Paid Labourers thereunder for regular recruitment to the post in Grade-D of the Border Roads Organization. The review petition preferred by the Union of India before the Division Bench of this Court was dismissed and being aggrieved, with the same, the Union of India has assailed the order passed by the Division Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the matter and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was set aside. However, a direction was issued to consider enacting an appropriate Regulation/Scheme for absorption and regularization of the services of the casual workers engaged by the Border Roads Organization for execution of its ongoing projects taking, into consideration the long duration of the engagement of the casual workers in the Border Roads Organization. The said judgment is reported in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vartak Labour Union, (2011) 4 SCC 200 . 4. The said judgment is reported in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vartak Labour Union, (2011) 4 SCC 200 . 4. Pursuant to the said directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government of India, Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways, Border Roads Organization Development Board made an endorsement dated 07.09.2012, which was challenged by the appellants in the writ petition, is to the effect that the casual labourers not being engaged against any regular establishment and there being no regular budget for their wages in the annual budget of the Organization and the wages of such casual labourers being paid out of the funds earmarked for the works in which they were deployed depending upon the workload or as provided by the departments, by whom the work is entrusted to the Border Roads Organization, which was stated to be a work-charged organization, the GREF being engaged in the sovereign function of the State and on an average, 90000 Casual Paid Labourers being engaged on daily wage basis, consideration of such large number of Casual Paid Labourers for regularization, being not practicable and possible owing to non-provisioning/ availability of funds, absence of vacancies and, therefore, the claim of the members of the appellant Union for regularization of their services cannot be accepted. The said endorsement dated 07.09.2012 was subjected to a contempt petition preferred by the appellant Union, however, the said contempt petition came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.08.2013 with the observation that the Union of India has not willfully disobeyed the directions passed by this Court in Vartak Labour Union (supra). While dismissing the said contempt petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to the appellant Union to question the correctness or otherwise of the endorsements dated 07.09.2012 before an appropriate forum. 5. It is to be noticed that in the meantime, the casual labourers of the Border Roads Organization working in the State of Uttarakhand had approached the High Court of Uttarakhand with a prayer for regularization of their services. The Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand issued directions to the Union of India for regularization of their services with certain other directions, including payment of costs. The Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand issued directions to the Union of India for regularization of their services with certain other directions, including payment of costs. The said orders passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand came to be challenged by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. All India Trade Union Congress & Ors. , (2019) 5 SCC 773 has set aside the said directions of the High Court of Uttarakhand relying on the decision of the Vartak Labour Union (supra). 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has refused to grant any relief to the appellant by making the following observations:- “20. The grievance of the petitioners as raised in the above-noted writ petitions is non-regularization of their services even after having rendered their services for a considerable period of time. The petitioners, accordingly, have prayed for a direction upon the respondents for initiation of appropriate steps towards provincialization of their services. As noticed hereinabove; prayers similar to the one now made in the present proceedings was also involved in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VARTAK Labour Union (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court upon examining the issue, was pleased, vide order, dated 04.03.2012, to set aside the directions as passed by this Court vide order, dated 27.03.2001, in WA 548/1996. It is to be noted that this Court had directed the respondent authorities for provincialization of the services of the Casual Paid Labourers against the vacant posts in Group D of the said organization. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VARTAK Labour Union(supra); had required the Union of India to consider enacting an appropriate regulation/scheme for regularization/ absorption of the services of the Casual workers engaged by the Border Road Organization (BRO) for execution of its on-going projects. 21. It is to be noted that in the proceeding of VARTAK Labour Union (supra), the issue was so raised pertaining to all the Casual Paid Labourers so engaged by the Border Road Organization (BRO) for the purpose of execution of its various projects. 21. It is to be noted that in the proceeding of VARTAK Labour Union (supra), the issue was so raised pertaining to all the Casual Paid Labourers so engaged by the Border Road Organization (BRO) for the purpose of execution of its various projects. There was no sub-classification made in the said decision pertaining to the Casual Paid Labourers so engaged by the Border Road Organization(BRO) in the establishments now contended to be permanent in nature by the petitioners, herein. The directions as issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VARTAK Labour Union(supra), to the Union of India for enacting an appropriate regulation/scheme, was considered by the Union of India and vide communication, dated 07.09.2012, after holding that it would not be practicable or feasible to frame a scheme for the Casual Paid Labourers so engaged by the Border Road Organization (BRO) which was contended to be around 90000 personnel; proceeded to hold that it was not possible to accede to the request for framing of an appropriate regulation/scheme for regularization of the services of the Casual Paid Labourers so engaged in the respondent organization. 22. At this stage; it is relevant to take note of the submission made by Mr. Choudhury, learned DSGI that the Border Road Organization(BRO) does not sub-classify the Casual Paid Labourers based on the nature of their employment and/or in the establishments in which they are so engaged. As the said issue was so pending, a similar issue arose before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital wherein an organization whose members were engaged as casual labourers in Border Road Organization (BRO) had instituted the proceedings for regularization of their services. The High Court having allowed the said writ petitions, the Union of India had assailed the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. All India Trade Union Congress & Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order, dated 15.03.2019 [reported in (2019) 5 SCC 773 ], following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VARTAK Labour Union(supra), proceeded to reject the directions so passed in the matter by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. 23. v. All India Trade Union Congress & Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order, dated 15.03.2019 [reported in (2019) 5 SCC 773 ], following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VARTAK Labour Union(supra), proceeded to reject the directions so passed in the matter by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. 23. In the above view of the matter and there being a categorical pronouncement of the issue made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; this Court is not in a position to accept the prayers as made by the petitioners in the abovenoted writ petitions, for a direction for regularization of the services of the Casual Paid Labourers and accordingly, applying the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the case of VARTAK Labour Union(supra); as well as in the case of All India Trade Union Congress & ors. (supra); the relief as sought for by the petitioners in the present proceedings, cannot be granted by this Court. 24. The distinction as sought to be drawn by Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, in respect of the members of the petitioner Union in WP (c) 6609/2013, as noticed hereinabove, cannot also be considered in-as- much as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VARTAK Labour Union (supra), while considering the issues so arose; which also involved the issues raised by the members of the present petitioner Union and no distinction having been made between the Casual Paid Labourers engaged by the Border Road Organization (BRO) in its construction activities as well as those engaged by it in its permanent establishments; this Court cannot now draw the said distinction. 25. The above aspect of the matter is also not being considered in view of the categorical statements made by Mr. Choudhury, learned DSGI, who, by referring to the affidavits filed in the matter by the respondents, has submitted that the Border Road Organization (BRO) does not sub-classify its Casual Paid Labourers basing on the nature of their employment.” 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment because as per the own admission of the respondent Union of India, the members of the appellant Union are engaged in permanent establishment of Border Roads Organization and, therefore, their case for regularization is to be considered in the light of the above fact. 8. 8. Per contra, Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment because the Border Roads Organization does not classify the Casual Paid Labourers based on the nature of their employment, i.e. engagement in permanent establishment or otherwise. It is further submitted that the issue is set at rest by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance, therefore, no case for interference is made out. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that the issue raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge has already been decided against the members of the appellant Union by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by passing authoritative judgments, the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.