Division Bench erroneously construed Office Memo dated 02-02-2001 as an approved scheme for absorption and regularization of casual workers - Office Memo dated 02-02-2001 was merely in nature of an inter-department communication between appellant organizations' headquarters and its officials - Inter-departmental communications and notings in departmental files did not have sanction of law creating a legally enforceable right - Respondent Union's claim for regularization of its members merely because they had been working for appellant organization for a considerable period of time should not be granted in light of several Supreme Court decisions wherein it had been consistently held that casual employment terminated when same was discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker had been engaged beyond period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if original appointment was not in terms of process envisaged by relevant rules - Members of respondent Union, therefore, were not entitled to be regularized in their service and hence impugned High Court order was set aside - Appeal allowed.
