Judgment 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 months 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: "Please note that your services are purely temporary and liable to be terminated at short notice." On the 15th December 1949 he was "provisionally confirmed with effect from the 17th November. 1948 (Annexure 2). It appears that subsequently, he was removed from service on and from the 15th October, 1957 but on representation he was re-appointed as ticket collector on 60-130 scale, his salary being Fixed at Rs. 60 plus usual allowance (Annexure 3). In this order also it was not stated that the appointment was purely temporary. On the 22nd December, 1959 his services were terminated (Annexure 4) and the reasons given for such termination were that his services were no longer required. The petitioner appears to have kepi quiet for some time though his representation to the superior authority namely General Manager, had been rejected on the 13th February 1960 (Annexure 5) on the ground that the termination of his service was due to the exercise of the right in accordance with the terms and conditions of service between the parties and that there was no penalty. 3. After some years their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram Deka V/s. 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. 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. 4 A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Bose on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the jurisdiction conferred on this court to interfere with an order passed by an authority situated outside the limits of this courts jurisdiction could not be given retrospective effect and that as the order of termination of the petitioners service was passed in 1959 by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur this court had no jurisdiction to interfere with that order under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the said Article was amended by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 which came into force on the 5th October, 1963 and if the petitioners right of reinstatement were to depend entirely on the validity Or otherwise of the order of the General Manager terminating his service on the 22nd December, 1959 (Annexure 4). the preliminary objection of Mr. Bose could certainly have prevailed; but we find that, soon after the pronouncement of the said judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the Railway Board issued instructions on the 28th April, 1964 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit), to all General Managers of Railways, directing them to give effect to that judgment in respect of those ex-employees who applied for reinstatement within a period of 6 years from the date of termination of their service. This direction of the Railway Board to the General Managers of all the Railways must be given effect to and if there is failure on the part of any railway authority to give effect to the same this court can issue the appropriate writ of mandamus directing that authority to comply with such direction Here we find that the final order of the Chief Commercial Superintendent, informing the petitioner that his services were not required (Annexure 8). was passed on the 14th September, 1904. after issue of the said direction by the Railway Board (Annexure A). It is not denied that the application of the petitioner for reinstatement was made within six years from the date of termination of his service. 5. Mr. Bose therefore, quite fairly conceded that, if it could be held that the petitioner was a non-temporary (permanent) servant of the Railway Board in 1959 he will be entitled to the benefits of the said direction. According to him, however the petitioner was only a temporary railway servant when his services were terminated in 1959 by annexure 4. and consequently, be was not entilled to the benefits of the said direction 6. We are however not satisfied from the papers on record that Mr. Boses contention that the petitioner was temporary railway servant is correct we have already referred to the fact that though the petitioner was originally appointed on a temporary basis in 1947. he was subsequently provisionally confirmed in 1949 (Annexure 2), and, when he was re-appointed on the 17th October 1958 (Annexure 3), it was not stated that the re-appointment was on a temporary basis Then again, when the petitioner represented to the railway authority for reinstatement after delivery of the judgment by their Lordships of the Supreme Court (Annexures 6 and 7) and expressly referred to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 148 of the Railway Establishment Code which applies only to non-temporary railway servants, the railway authority in its reply (Annexure 8), did not state that the petitioner was not entitled to rely on the said judgment because he was a temporary railway servant This assertion that he was a temporary railway servant was made for the first time in the counter affidavit filed here by the respondents and in view of the previous documents mentioned above, we are not prepared to accept the same. We. We. therefore, hold that the petitioner was not a temporary railway servant when his service were terminated in 1959 and that consequently, in view of the instructions issued by the Railway Board on the 28th April. 1964 (Annexure A), he was entitled to reinstatement. 7. The application is allowed, the order of the railway authority dated the 14th September, 1964 (Annexure 8) is quashed, and the said authority is directed to implement the direction of the Railway Board contained in Annexure A. The petitioner is entitled to his costs: hearing fee Rs. 100/-.