GAFFAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were employed as casual workers in the North eastern Railway and by the impugned order (Annexure 1) their services have been terminated i'hey have challenged the order by the present writ application.

(2.) MR Keshaw Nath Tiwarv, learned counsel for the petitioners, has pressed the following three points in support of the application:

(3.) ON the first point the petitioners have stated that the respondent Np. 6 is not the District officer Incharge or Divisional Personnel Officer or Personnel Officer and, as such, he cannot be treated to be the employer so as to entitle him to retrench the petitioners, According to the case of the respondents as disclosed in the counter affidavit, the petitioners were employed through bridge Inspector, Further, the order dispensing with the services of the petitioners has not been passed by the Bridge Inspector. He is merely carrying out the orders of the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 4) who being the District Officer incharge is admittedly authorised to do so. This step had to be taken in compliance with the direction of this Court in C. W. J. C. 341 of 1977 and C. W. T. C. 1499 of 1977. The statement has been denied by the petitioners by a further affidavit, but I do not see any reasons to disbelieve the assertion made on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the order dated 8th May, 1980 passed by the Executive Engineer as contained in annexure 'a' to the counter affidavit supports the respondents' version that the decision to retrench the petitioners was taken by him and the respondent No 6 was merely carrying out the direction by his order in Annexure T. The first ground urged by the petitioners, therefore, is rejected.