OM PRAKASH Vs. DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, NORTHERN RLY.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference to a Full Bench arises out of a writ petition filed by a former railway employee. Om Pra -kash was an employee of Northern Railway. On 6 -3 -1961 he was removed from service by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway. Lucknow. Om Prakash filed in this Court in March, 1961 the writ petition challenging the order of removal He also filed an appeal to the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway. New Delhi against the order of removal. On 19 -8 -1961 the Divisional Superintendent, Lucknow informed the petitioner that the appeal had been dismissed by the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, New Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner applied to this Court for permission to implead the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, New Delhi and the Union of India as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition. Amendment was allowed on 3 -7 -1967.

(3.) Mr. Jagdish Swarup appearing for the respondents urged before a single Judge of this Court that the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. Jagdish Swarup contended that the order of removal dated 6 -3 -1961 has merged in the appellate order of the Chief Mechanical Engineer. It was pointed out that the office of the Chief Mechanical Engineer is at New Delhi. The office is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court. Mr. Jagdish Swarup, therefore, contended that the writ petition was bound to fail. The petitioner relied on Clause (1 -A) of Article 226 of the Constitution. It was urged for the petitioner that since a part of the cause of action arose within Uttar Pradesh, this Court has jurisdiction. The respondents pointed out that Clause (1 -A) was inserted in Article 226 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, which came into force in October, 1963, The appellate order was passed by the Chief Mechanical Engineer in 1961 - -before the amendment came into force. It was contended for the respondents that the amendment of Article 226 in 1963 cannot have retrospective effect. Consequently, this Court has no power to interfere with the appellate order passed by the Chief Mechanical Engineer in the year 1961. The learned single Judge considered that the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents presented much difficulty. He, therefore, referred the following question of law to a larger Bench: - -