P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. A common issue is involved in all these writ petitions/Original Petitions filed by the Railways who were the respondents in the O.As preferred by the applicants. The challenge is against the verdict passed by the Tribunal, whereby the date of absorption of the applicants in regular service has been ordered to be reckoned, with reference to that of their junior, by name K. Viswanathan, who was having only lesser number of days of work to his credit, for having regularised in accordance with the Scheme prepared by the Government [pursuant to the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Inderpal Yadav and others v. Union of India, 1985 SCC (L&S) 526 and Dakshin Railway Employees Union, Trivandrum Division v. General Manager, Southern Railway and others, (1987) 1 SCC 677 = AIR 1987 SC 1153. The benefit given to Viswanathan, according to the petitioners/Railways, was only by way of a mistake, which could not have been perpetuated by virtue of settled position of law and hence the challenge.

2. The issue with regard to the claim for retrospective regularisation was sought to be opposed on merits as well as on the ground of delay, which will be discussed in the due course. It appears that the grievance was sought to be pursued by the applicants more in view of subsequent changes because of the amendment of the CCS (Pension) Rules w.e.f. 01.01.2004, whereby the persons who came to be inducted into regular service after the said date, were taken outside the purview of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The contention of the applicants was that they were having 'continuing cause of action' and that regularisation was being delayed due to some or other lame excuse, without any statutory backing and that, had they been regularised on time, at least with effect from the date of granting benefit to their junior by name Viswanathan, they also would have been eligible to get the benefit of pension, subject to satisfaction of the requirement under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The sequence of events has to be analysed in the above background. W.P.(C)23757 of 2010 is taken as the lead case and the parties and proceedings are referred to as mentioned therein, except where it is separately dealt with.

3. Heard Shri James Kurian, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/Railways and Mr.T.C. Govindaswamy, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents/applicants in all the cases except O.P(CAT) 45 of 2016-where the respondent, despite completion of service of notice, has not chosen to enter appearance.

4. The Railways have been engaging workers on casual basis and they were retrenched after sufficiently long spells of engagement in the 1980's. An issue had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in Inderpal Yadav and others vs. Union of India (1985 SCC (L&S) 526) and as such other connected cases, where retrenchment of casual labourers was the subject matter of consideration. The Apex Court disposed of the said cases, moulding the relief, also directing to prepare a Divisional list of all 'project casual labourers' in each Division of the Railways, who had been retrenched after the cut off date mentioned and consider them for future engagement, pursuant to which separate lists were prepared by the Trivandrum and Palakkad Divisions (as concerned in these cases). The said list was finalised after calling for objections and making necessary corrections. While so, the casual employees who were retrenched prior to 1981 and where having more/equal or similar service had approached the Apex Court claiming similar rights and their grievance was also redressed by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in [(1987)1 SCC 677] (cited supra) ordering to include their names as well in the list to be prepared.

5. Pursuant to the above directions, the Railways prepared a 'Supplementary list' in respect of persons who were engaged and retrenched prior to 01.01.1981 and the same was sought to be operated afte