Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134909-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10526 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramzan Khan Respondent :- Member (J), Central Administrative Tribunal and 5 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagadeesh Prasad Chaurasiya, Nitin Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Shashi Prakash Singh, A.S.G.I.,Prem Shanker Prasad Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The Original Application was filed seeking quashing of the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the Deputy Chief Material Manager, General Store Depot, Jhansi, whereby the claim of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Tribunal in a previous Original Application was rejected and seeking direction to the respondents to appoint/re-engage the petitioner on Group-D post by granting age relaxation as he became overage due to his contesting the matter before the Tribunal and the High Court. 3. The petitioner claims to have been initially engaged as casual labour on 18.10.1986 and that he continued to work until 1991. On 01.02.1990 the petitioner was called upon to appear before the screening committee, however, neither he was accorded the requisite status as temporary nor the result was communicated to him. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed petition before the Circuit Bench at Gwalior, which was initially withdrawn. On being refiled, the same was returned due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. 4. The petition filed before the Tribunal at Allahabad was disposed of on 25.02.2003 with a direction to grant him temporary status as per the applicable Rules and his name be entered in the Live Casual Labour Register. The said order was challenged by the respondents before this Court, which by order dated 25.05.2007 set aside the direction regarding temporary status but upheld the rest of the order. Further directions were given for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization. 5. The respondents rejected the petitioner's claim for regular appointment. The petitioner kept on raising grievances seeking appointment, however, the same was not granted and therefore, he again approached the Tribunal, which on 21.09.2021 ordered for consideration of the representation, which again was rejected on 31.10.2021, against which the present Original Application was filed. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was screened in the year 1990 and while other individuals were found fit and granted temporary status, the petitioner was not selected and that rejection of petitioner's representation cannot be faulted and consequently, dismissed the Original Application. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the Original Application as the petitioner was pursuing his cause for over three decades and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 9. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record available on record. 10. The crux of the matter is that this Court in the previous writ petition found that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and his period of engagement was as under : "16.05.1989 to 14.08.1989 16.05.1990 to 13.08.1990 14.01.1991 to 14.03.1991 24.03.1991 to 23.06.1991" 11. A perusal of the above would reveal that the petitioner had worked for about eleven months between 16.05.1989 to 23.06.1991. In previous Original Application when directions were given to accord temporary status and consider the case for regularization, this Court by its judgement dated 25.05.2007, while setting aside the direction to grant temporary status, directed that his name may be entered in the Live Casual Labour Register and consider his case for regular appointment in accordance with the Rules. 12. Admittedly, pursuant to the directions the name of the petitioner was entered in the Live Casual Labour Register, however, after 23.06.1991, he had not worked for a single day. The plea sought to be raised seeking regularization, only on account of filing repeated petitions since the year 1996, by itself cannot be countenanced. It would be seen that the petitioner had last worked about 34 years back for about eleven months over a period of two years and that also with breaks, his case was considered at the relevant time and rejected, the direction given by the Tribunal on the previous occasion to grant him temporary status was set aside by this Court, the plea of regularization now cannot be sustained. 13. Consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad