S.K. Katriar, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.9.2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No.127 of 2002 (Subodh Singh and others vs. The Union of India and another), whereby the original application preferred by the applicants (respondent nos.1 to 5 herein), has been allowed and the Railways have been directed to re-engage the five applicants forthwith on the same post of Group ‘D’ category with temporary status and consequential relief. The Railways are aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal and have, therefore, preferred the present writ petition. The applicants of the original application (respondent nos.1 to 5 herein) have placed on record their counter affidavit.

2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. Respondent no.1 had started working as a substitute on 21.11.1980, and had acquired temporary status on 29.6.1983; respondent no.2 herein had started as a substitute prior to 1981, and had got temporary status on 10.4.1985; respondent no.3 had started working as a substitute on 7.6.1977, and had got temporary status on 30.7.1987; respondent no.4 had started working as substitute on 25.11.1977, and had got temporary status on 29.8.1985; and lastly respondent no.5 had started working as substitute on 1.6.1980, and was given temporary status on a date not disclosed in the proceedings, as per the scheme of the Indian Railways indicated in Master Circular on Appointment of Substitutes on the Railways bearing R.B. No.12/91, dated 29.1.1991. The five respondents were discontinued sometime in the year 1990. The further case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that they submitted representation(s) which remained unattended. One such representation is on record. In view of complete inaction on the part of the authorities, the respondents preferred the aforesaid original application which has been allowed in full. The authorities have been directed to be reinstated with Status Quo Ante, i.e. with temporary status as on the last date they had worked with consequential reliefs, and the further direction to consider their cases for regularization in service. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:

(I) The applicants shall be re-engaged forthwith on the same post of Group ‘D’ category with temporary status on which they were working at the time of their dis-engagement.

(II) The names of the applicants shall be entered in the live casual labour register maintained by the respondents in accordance with their seniority on the basis of period of their services from the date of their initial appointment while treating the applicants in continuous service from the date from which their services were disengaged, for the purpose of counting of their seniority for regularization of their services as casual labour.

(III) Thereafter, to consider the case of the applicants for their regularization in accordance with their seniority against the available posts positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ”

3. The stand of the Railways before the Tribunal was that the original application was hit by delay. They had last worked in 1990, and the original application was filed in 2002. Their further case was that the persons who have worked as substitutes, or, after they acquired temporary status, have no enforceable right. They are casual workers. They are employed to meet the exigency of situation caused by leave etc.

4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Substitute has been defined in the aforesaid Master Circular No.12/91, paragraph 3 of which is reproduced hereinbelow:

“3. Circumstances under which “Substitutes” can be appointed: Ordinarily, there should be no occasion to engage “Substitutes” having regard to the fact that practically in all cat