KISHORI NANDAN PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 257 of the Constitution against the order of General Manager. North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur dated the 22nd December, 1959 (Annexure 4), terminating the services of the petitioner with one month's pay in lieu of notice and the subsequent order of the Chief Commercial Superintendent Gorakhpur dated the 14th September. 1964 (Annexure 8) (on the representation of the petitioner) informing him that his services were not required.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. The petitioner was first appointed temporarily as a ticket collector on the 11th November. 1947. In the order of appointment (Annexure l). it was staled as follows:

(3.) After some years their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager North East Frontier Railway. AIR 964 SC 600, declared Sub-rule (3) of Rule 148 and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 149 of the Railway Establishment Code as unconstitutional. The petitioner then made a representation to the railway authority to reinstate him. In this representation (Annexure 7) also the petitioner referred to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 148 of the Railway Establishment Code which admittedly applies to non-temporary railway servants. In his subsequent representation made to the General Manager (Annexure 6), the same rule was quoted. In the reply sent to the petitioner (Annexure 8), the Chief Commercial Superintendent stated as follows: "It is to inform you that your services are not required". There is no reference to the Supreme Court judgment or to reasons as to why the Chief Commercial Superintendent thought that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits arising out of that judgment.