BAIJNATH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the legality and validity of the order issued from the office of the General Manager (C), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, on 29-1-81 and addressed to the Divisional Manager (C), North Eastern Railway, Sonpur, is challenged. A copy of that order has been marked as Annexure 9 in CWJC 485/81 and Annexure 7 in CWJC 757/81. Both the cases have accordingly been heard together and hence this common judg-ment. The effect of the impugned order is to award the vending contract of upper deck of steamers plying between Mahen-drughat and Falezaghat and vice versa (hereinafter to be referred to as the upper deck), which was being managed departmentally by the railway administration to Surendra Mishra, respondent 6 in CWJC 485/81 and respondent 5 in CWJC 757/81.

(2.) I propose to deal with CWJC 485/81 first and then come to the facts of CWJC 757/81.

(3.) The 23 petitioners in CWJC 485/81 have asserted as follows. The petitioners are commission vendors under departmental management of catering/vending services of the upper deck. Petitioner 1 Baijnath Singh had been working as a vending contractor at Sonepur Railway Junction prior to the year 1959. In 1959 the vending contract at Sonepur Railway Junction was departmentalised and petitioner 1 was appointed as a commission vendor by the railway administration for operation of the vending/catering work at Sonepur Railway Junction under the department. In the year 1973 the catering/ vending contract on upper deck was also taken under direct departmental control and the petitioners on their application to the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Sonepur, were appointed as commission vendors on the upper deck. The petitioners were asked to enter into an agreement for acting as commission vendors which was duly executed. A sample copy of one of the appointment letters has been marked Annexure 1 to the petition and a copy of the skeleton agreement, referred to above, as Annexure 2. It has further been asserted that from the year 1973 since the date of appointment of the petitioners to serve as commission vendors on the upper deck they were continuing to render their services to the satisfaction of all concerned. The petitioners, as it has been said in the petition, had been appointed on probation but on account of their valuable services to the railway administration and the public in general they were continuing to render their services without being permanently absorbed. It has further been stated that the petitioners had been frequently representing their cases for regu-larisation of their services in the railways which resulted ultimately in issuance of a departmental instruction dated 13-12-76 from the Ministry of Railways to the General Managers of All India railways as contained in Annexure 3 to CWJC 485/ 81. The operative portion of the instruction dated 13-12-76 runs as follows :--