Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) Assailing the order dated 20th December, 2004 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O A No 1149 of 1995, this writ application has been filed in the year 2009 before this Court.
(3.) It appears that the writ petitioners moved the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 18981 of 2008 assailing the said order and the application was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to move to the appropriate Court. There is no explanation as to why after the order dated 20th December, 2004 and prior to the filing of the application to the Patna High Court, the writ petitioners did not approach this High Court. On reading of the impugned order it appears that the writ petitioners along with other 117 applicants moved the original application seeking regularisation of service on the alleged ground that during the period from 1966 to 1981 they worked beyond 240 days as casual labourers (Gangmen). Learned Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that out of 119 only 15 persons had worked more than 240 days in a year and as such 'the joint application by all the applicants was not maintainable. Besides such, learned Tribunal held that they were not entitled even to maintain their names in the Live Register following the Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal as referred to.;