N. Sengupta, J. - (1.) The subject -matter of challenge in this case is a notice calling upon the applicant to show -cause why his lien in S.E. Railway should not be cancelled.
(2.) The facts averred by the applicant are that in January, 1964, he was appointed as a casual Motor Driver in the Mahanadi Bridge Construction Division of the S.E. Railway and he continued in that employment till upto 19.3.1965. Again in 1974, he was engaged as a casual Motor Driver under the Metro Railway Transport Project and has been continuing to work there. The Railway Board on 13.4.1976 issued a circular with regard to the empanelment of casual labour for regular Class IV posts and absorption of surplus casual labour. According to that circular, those who were working in the Metro Projects of Delhi, Madras and Bombay, were to be screened and absorbed in Northern, Southern and Western Railways respectively. So far as the Metro Transport Project in Calcutta is concerned, the Railway Board by that circular directed screening of the labour force in the South Eastern and Eastern Railways along with the casual labour engaged in the open line. This circular is Annexure 'N' to the application. While the applicant was working in the Metro Railway Project of Calcutta, the General Manager of the said Railway, recommended the case of the applicant for appointment as a Motor Driver, on regular basis, in the South -Eastern Railway, but that not being possible, the applicant appeared before the authority of the South -Eastern Railway for screening and after being screened, he was medically examined. This screening by appearing at the trade test was in January, 1981. Subsequent thereto, followed some more correspondence between the General Manager of the Metro Railways and the Chief Personnel Officer, S.E. Railway, with regard to the screening and medical examination of the applicant. The applicant has averred that he was given a paper lien in the S.E. Railway for a Class IV post. The applicant, as we gather from the averments made by him, is still continuing to work in the Metro Railway Project.
(3.) The father of the applicant, Jamuna Ram, was an employee of the S.E. Railway and was allotted a quarter from the CPO's pool at Garden Reach. In May, 1984, that quarter was allotted to the applicant under 'father and son' Rule as Jamuna Ram retired. When matters stood thus, the applicant was served with the notice, annexure 'H', dated 8.8.1986. After receipt of that notice, he made a representation to the CPO, S.E. Railway, on 26.8.1986, wherein it was staled that even though his junior, one Ashok Kumar Mukherjee's lien was kept in that Rly. and he was being absorbed, he (applicant) was meted out a discriminatory treatment by the issue of the aforesaid notice to show -cause. Thereafter, on 14.3.1987, the applicant submitted an appeal petition to the General Manager of S.E. Railways for consideration of his case and filed this application on 2.4.1987.;