JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioners in Civil Rule No. 5701 (W) of 1968 who are skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workmen, were recruited as casual labourers in different categories under the Bridge Inspector, Eastern Railway, Howrah. According to the case made in the petition though they were recruited during period ranging from 1955 to 1963 and completed much more than six months' service, they have been always and are still treated as casual labourers in violation of the Railway Board Circular of 22. 8. 62 which provided that workmen having six months' continuous service are to be treated as being in temporary status with all benefits attached thereto. The right of the casual labour to be treated as such have been embodied in Chapter XXV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as Establishment Manual) as revised from time to time, which was substituted by the above circular in place of the existing Chapter XXV. The provisions of the said chapter have been given full effect in case of others in the same department but have been disregarded and flouted by the authorities in the case of the petitioners even though they have completed more than six months' continuous service. It was further alleged that by this arbitrary discrimination the petitioners have been deprived of the benefits available to the temporary staff under Chapter XXIII of the Establishment Manual while other casual labourers in the same department similarly situated had been enjoying such benefits after the completion of six months' service. The respondents are not only refusing to give effect to the said provisions but had also given temporary status to persons junior in service and specific instances of such absorption were cited in the case of some workmen who were juniors to the petitioner denying the petitioners equal opportunity to employment under the Railways. The respondents have also been adopting methods to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate rights by making artificial breaks in their service before the expiry of six months of service in contravention of Note 4 of Rule 2501 of Chapter XXV of the Establishment Manual, as the respondents in some cases made artificial breaks in their service for very short period and again reappointed them as casual labourers. There were further allegations that the services of the petitioners were, purported to be terminated without payment of any retrenchment benefit to which they were entitled under provisions of section 25 P of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In these circumstances they prayed by the present application, for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as in temporary service from the respective dates of their completion of six months' continuous service, with all benefits attached to such service and also commanding them to forbear from creating artificial breaks in service preventing them from attaining temporary status and also from retrenching them from service. 2. THE rule has been opposed by the respondents who have filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the material allegations in the petition. It was stated in this affidavit that the petitioners are all casual labourers employed in different categories as unskilled, semi-skilled or skilled workmen. It was stated that the petitioners had been employed on occasions as casual labour, being seasonal labour sanctioned for specific work of less than six months' duration and accordingly they are casual labour according to rules. Except the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 none of the petitioners acted continuously for six months. As to petitioner No. 2 he had worked for more than six months on two occasions while the petitioner No. 3 had worked for more than six months on one occasion. When they had worked continuously for more than six months they had been given temporary status with all benefits attached thereto. Accordingly the other petitioners were not eligible to enjoy the benefits of temporary status as claimed by them. Reference was made to the relevant rules regarding casual labour providing that casual labourers may continue to enjoy the benefits of temporary status so long as they would continue to be in service on specific work for which sanction became available if it is found that the workers were working continuously for more than six months. The petitioners not being in continuous employment are not in temporary status as such and not entitled to benefits attached thereto. The allegations of discrimination were denied as no discrimination was made in giving effect to the provisions of Chapter XXV between the petitioners and other casual labourers and no provision of the relevant rules was disregarded or flouted in the case of the petitioners. The allegations of discrimination were denied as no discrimination was made in giving effect to the provisions of Chapter XXV between the petitioners and other casual labourers and no provision of the relevant rules was disregarded or flouted in the case of the petitioners. It was stated that the conditions and benefits of service applicable to permanent and temporary labourers are not applicable to casual labourers and casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not be brought on permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular Selection Board for recruitment as Class IV staff. As to the discriminatory treatment alleged in paragraph 13 of the petition regarding 9 workmen junior to the petitioners specifically mentioned as having been permanently absorbed, it was stated that some casual labourers applied for recruitment in Class IV staff of Lilooah Workshop on information given by the Bridge Inspector, Howrah. Labourers mentioned in Items I to 7 were, absorbed on selection by the Selection Board and were appointed to regular Class IV posts of permanent posts of the said Workshop. The other labourers were not absorbed either because they did not apply or were not selected by the Selection Board. As to the two other persons, namely Gobinda Maity and Man Bahadur, they were posted as chowkidar in 1958 and 1961 under the Bridge Inspector for security of the railway's materials as the other labourers did not agree to accept such post on the ground that such chowkidars had to perform twelve hours' duty in place of eight hours' work for others. The allegations that casual labourers having less number of working days in their credit were given temporary status in supersession of claims of other casual workers were denied. It was further stated that Lakshminarayan, mentioned by the petitioners as an instance of supersession, was never a casual worker under Bridge Inspector, Howrah but on his transfer he was selected by the Selection Board for recruitment in Class IV staff and appointed as Khalashi under the Divisional Engineer, bridge and he had been in continuous service since then. Gyan Bahadur, another person referred by the petitioners, was recruited as casual labourer and was discharged on 23. 7. 68. It was further stated that on the expiry of the period for which a specific work has been sanctioned the casual labourers get automatic discharge and there is thus no question of artificial break in service. Gyan Bahadur, another person referred by the petitioners, was recruited as casual labourer and was discharged on 23. 7. 68. It was further stated that on the expiry of the period for which a specific work has been sanctioned the casual labourers get automatic discharge and there is thus no question of artificial break in service. Casual labour means under the rules seasonal labour sanctioned for specific work of less than six months' duration. There is no sufficient number of sanctioned works of less than six months' duration to keep all casual labourer continually employed one after another, so that intermittent breaks occur in the service in normal course. It was further stated that the service of the petitioners who acquire temporary status has also to be terminated as and when there is no further sanction to continue them in service. It was also denied that after the discharge of the petitioners fresh hands who were juniors in service were employed be the respondents. The casual labour with more numbers of working days in their credit are re-employed on the commencement of the next sanctioned work. There was no retrenchment as alleged and the petitioner's service was terminated on the expiry of the sanction. According to rules even a workman in temporary service is not entitled to any notice of termination of service on the expiry of the sanction of the post which he holds. Accordingly the petitioners being casual labourers are not eligible for compensation at the rate of 15 days for every complete year of their service. For these reasons, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief claimed by them. 3. AN affidavit-in-reply was filed by the petitioners wherein the allegations made in the petition were reiterated. The petitioners referred to the seniority list annexed thereto which indicated that, the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 13 respectively held serial Nos. 10 and 17 but they were not absorbed which will show a discriminatory treatment at least in regard to the said petitioners. 4. AFTER filing of the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioners filed three more supplementary affidavits. In the first affidavit of 29th April, 1971 the complaint was that the respondent No. 5 issued a letter stating that as there was no work in the division, casual laborer was being paid against the order of the High Court. 4. AFTER filing of the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioners filed three more supplementary affidavits. In the first affidavit of 29th April, 1971 the complaint was that the respondent No. 5 issued a letter stating that as there was no work in the division, casual laborer was being paid against the order of the High Court. It was also stated in the affidavit that certain persons named therein had been taken against the vacancies so that the allegations that there were no vacancies in B. R. I. Department is not correct. In the second affidavit of 11th May, 1971 it was stated with reference to a letter annexed thereto that there was sanction for work where they had been working. It is obvious that there were works for the administration and it could, if it so desired, absorb the petitioners against permanent vacancies. In the third affidavit of 17th November, 1571, a letter of the Railway Board was enclosed in which it was directed to all General Managers to fill up the vacancies in Class IV staff from casual labourers available on December 19, 1969, since extended to December 31, 1972 and no outsider was to be appointed to class IV post. An affidavit-in-reply of November 30, 1971 has been filed, against the three supplementary affidavits, by the respondent No. 1. It was stated that the petitioners were liable to be discharged on the expiry of the sanctions but in view of the injunction order of this court, the petitioners excepting Nos. 4 and 12 who since died were retained in service and status quo was maintained. It was further stated that the petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10, the senior casual labourers working in temporary status, have been since absorbed in permanent vacancies and they are entitled to be recruited as Class IV staff if selected by the Selection Board after screening. Further three senior casual labourers were absorbed in permanent vacancies at the time and these eight are the senior-most labourers appeared in the serial list 1 to 9 of the list annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. Further three senior casual labourers were absorbed in permanent vacancies at the time and these eight are the senior-most labourers appeared in the serial list 1 to 9 of the list annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. Further in May, 1971 a few senior casual labourers with others were engaged in temporary sanction named in annexure of the second supplementary affidavit and that they are petitioners 7, 8, 9 and 11 where they are still working, while the petitioner No. 14 did not turn up at all and the petitioners Nos. 1 and 13 had been retained under injunction practically without any work since they refused to work under sanction. It was further stated that the casual labourers are confined to their respective units but if any staff of his own applied for recruitment to a separate unit they are forwarded accordingly, though it is not incumbent on the part of the particular department to consider cases of the staff of other departments. Further the petitioners are casual labourers in the Civil Engineering Department and publication of panel by Lilooah Work-shop personnel officer has no relevancy for absorption in the Bridge which is a Civil Engineering Department. It was also stated that a seniority list of casual labourers working in B. R. I. Howrah on the basis of total working days has been prepared and whenever necessary under any sanction, the senior casual labourers are recruited against vacancies under sanction or screened by the Selection Board for empanelment for recruitment in Class IV staff. The petitioners filed a fourth supplementary affidavit on January 31, 1972 to which there was no affidavit-in-reply and it also appears that no leave of court was obtained for filing this affidavit and Mr. S. K. Roy Choudhury, learned Counsel for respondents also objected to the use of this affidavit. In that affidavit, it was alleged that the outsiders are being recruited against regular vacancies though the order of the Railway Board requires absorption of casual labourers only while the recruitment of outsiders was strictly forbidden. Reference was made to a circular annexed thereto bearing Reference No. E615/o/pt. II dated January 3, 1972 which stated that the benefits of ad hoc procedure for empanelment for Class IV vacancies should be extended to the casual labourers and substitutes by screening. 5. Reference was made to a circular annexed thereto bearing Reference No. E615/o/pt. II dated January 3, 1972 which stated that the benefits of ad hoc procedure for empanelment for Class IV vacancies should be extended to the casual labourers and substitutes by screening. 5. IT appears that an interim order was passed on August 7, 1968 directing that the status-quo to be maintained in the meantime. Subsequently on August 30, 1968 liberty was given to the respondents to employ the petitioners or so many of them for temporary periods during the pendency of the rule as and when the respondents will be in a position to provide them with work, it appears that in pursuance thereof there has been employment for several petitioners and Mr. Ganguly learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 16 had been absorbed and they do not want to continue as the petitioners in this rule. The petitioners Nos. 4, 10 and 11 are dead and it was also stated that as the petitioners Nos. 7, 8 and 9 have been absorbed since, they did not want to continue as the petitioners in this rule. In these circumstances by orders passed on March 9 and 14, 1972, the names of the said petitioners had been struck off. In this rule accordingly we are concerned only with title petitioners Nos. 1 and 13. 6. CIVIL Rule 7394 (W) of 1969 was obtained by some other casual labourers and allegations against the respondents are in the same line as those in tine application in the above rule and on the same grounds they wanted similar writs on the respondents, and this rule has been heard analogously with the other rule. It would however appear that by previous orders dated June 11, 1970 the names of the petitioners Nos. 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 32 and 33 were struck off as they did not want to press the rule. On the prayer of Mr. Ganguli that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6, 8, 10, 12 and 25 had since been absorbed and they are not willing to proceed with the rule, their names along with petitioner no. 29 who has no further interest have been struck off by order dated March 14, 1972. On the prayer of Mr. Ganguli that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6, 8, 10, 12 and 25 had since been absorbed and they are not willing to proceed with the rule, their names along with petitioner no. 29 who has no further interest have been struck off by order dated March 14, 1972. In this rule the respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition while the petitioners filed their affidavit-in-reply as also supplementary affidavit. The case of the parties being the same, the petition as also the affidavits were not placed before me with any particular reference. 7. ON April 27, 1971, it appears Mr. Ganguly submitted that he had instructions not to proceed with the Rule No. 7375 (W) of 1969 and accordingly the rule was discharged for non-prosecution. The other rules namely C. R. No. 7394 (W) of 1969 was directed to be heard with C. R. No. 5701 (W) of 1968. The discharge of C. R. No. 7395 (W) of 1969 was overlooked by the learned Advocates at the hearing of the rules above mentioned and it was treated as pending and at their request to be on day's list, and, orders were passed by me accordingly at the said hearing of the above rules treating it as alive, which is obviously an error and is to be treated as such. 8. MR. Noni Coomar Chakravarti, learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Chapter XXV of the Establishment Manual, which deals with Casual Labour. In Rule 2501, Clause (b), such of them who are retained for more than six months contiguously without a break are to be treated as temporary after expiry of the said period of continuous appointment. In Note 4 thereto, it has been provided that casual labour should not be deliberately discharged with a view to causing artificial break in their service and thus preventing their attaining temporary status. Under Rule 2511, a casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to all the rights and privileges admissible to temporary railway servants as laid down in Chapter XXIII of the Establishment Manual, Rule 2512 provides that casual labour acquiring temporary status, shall be considered for regular employment without going to Employment Exchanges and will have prior claim over others. Further for ensuring this, the names of all casual labour shall be maintained in the Divisions or Districts. Further for ensuring this, the names of all casual labour shall be maintained in the Divisions or Districts. The petitioners' case, as we have seen, is firstly that they have been prevented by the respondents from acquiring the temporary status by causing artificial breaks in their service as also by employing juniors in temporary or permanent staff in supersession of the claims of senior casual labourers who have more days of duty in their credit. Such acts on the part of the respondents are in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of Chapter XXV of the Establishment Manual which are statutory. The petitioners' claim is for appropriate writs for grant to them of temporary status in the railways. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has contended on the other hand that the casual labour is not a railway servant nor the Establishment Manual Chapter XXV is statutory. He has referred to Rule 102, Clause (13) of the Establishment Code Volume I in which Railway Servant has been defined as meaning a person who is a member of service or who holds a post under the administrative control of the Railway Board or under the Board itself. By an amendment made by notification on April 6. 1959, it has been provided that a Railway servant does not include casual labour. To be a Railway servant, one has, to come under the categories mentioned in Rule 105 and 106 of the Code. Rules of recruitment of Class III and IV staff are contained by provisions of Rule 137, in. Chapter I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, which are only statutory but the same have nothing to do with casual labour. Rule 149 contains provisions for termination of service and periods of notice, for (1) temporary railway servants, (2) apprentices (3) other railway servants but the rule does not apply to casual labour as he is not a railway servant, Rule 157 provides for the power of the Railway Board to make rules of general application to non-gazetted railway servants under their control but such power does not extend to casual labour. Accordingly rules framed or directives given by the Railway Board relating casual labour have no statutory force. 9. IT may be noted that sub-section IV of section B Chapter I of the said Manual, provides for recruitment of Class IV Railway Servants. Accordingly rules framed or directives given by the Railway Board relating casual labour have no statutory force. 9. IT may be noted that sub-section IV of section B Chapter I of the said Manual, provides for recruitment of Class IV Railway Servants. Clause (XIII) thereof deals with casual labour, substitutes and temporary hands, providing in Clause (a) that such workmen shall have prior claim over ethers to permanent recruitment ; in clause (b) that such workmen should be considered for regular appointment without having to go through Employment Exchanges which are normal medium of such employment under clause (vi. Further (c) thereof provides as follows : " (c. A register should be maintained by all Divisions or Districts concerned to indicate the names of casual labour, substitutes and temporary workmen who have rendered 6 months' service either continuous or in broken periods, for the purpose of future employment as casual workmen and also as regular employees, provided they are eligible for regular employment, The names should be recorded strictly in the order of their taking up casual appointment at the initial stage and for the purpose of empanelment for regular Class IV posts, they should, as far as possible be selected in the order maintained in the aforesaid registers In showing preference to casual labour over other outsiders due consideration and weightage should be given to the knowledge and experience gained by them. Other conditions being equal, total length of service as casual labour, either continuous or in broken periods, irrespective of whether they have attained temporary status or not, should be taken into account so as to ensure that casual labour who are senior by virtue of longer service are not left out. . . . . . . . . . " Clause (xi) (a) of section IV provides for recruitment by the Selection Board who will conduct interviews and or tests. The applications are to be screened by a Personnel Officer or such officer or committee of officers nominated for the purposes. 10. MR. Roy Chowdhury has taken great pains to establish that casual labour arc not railway servants, so that Railway Board's circulars have no application. He has further contended that Chapter XXV of the Establishment Manual has no statutory force. 10. MR. Roy Chowdhury has taken great pains to establish that casual labour arc not railway servants, so that Railway Board's circulars have no application. He has further contended that Chapter XXV of the Establishment Manual has no statutory force. In support he referred to the decision in (1) State of Assam and others v. Kanak Chandra Datta, A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 884 (6) in which it was held : "a post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment but every employment is not a post. A casual labourer is not the holder of a post. A post under the State means a past under the administrative control of the State. The State may create or abolish the post and may regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the post. " The observations about casual labour in the above case, as it appears to me, relates to casual labour simplicitor and they certainly do not apply to casual labour as used in the Establishment Manual and a regular feature in railways. The Manual provides, as we have seen, for his rights to be treated as in temporary status of railway servant on completion of six months' continuous service and also for empanelment for absorption in permanent Class IV staff of railways. 11. MR. Roy Chowdhury also referred to the Bench decision of this Court in Biswanath Mukherjee and others v. Union of India 75 C. W. N. 284 which was concerned with casual labourer in Railway Electrification. It was inter alia held that Railway Electrification is a project and the differentiation between casual labour in a project and casual labour in non-project work had a rational nexus to the object to be achieved by such differentiation. It was also held that after the amendment of definition in Rule 102 (13) of the Code made by the President vide Board letter no. E (S)-I-57cpc/140 of April 6, 1959 railway servant does not include casual labourer. Accordingly no rule can be framed for them under Rule 157 and so the casual labourers do not hold any civil post. It was also held that after the amendment of definition in Rule 102 (13) of the Code made by the President vide Board letter no. E (S)-I-57cpc/140 of April 6, 1959 railway servant does not include casual labourer. Accordingly no rule can be framed for them under Rule 157 and so the casual labourers do not hold any civil post. In view of the above decision which, it was argued, is binding on me, the rules of Chapter XXV which have been framed by the Railway Board by various letters (vide Concordance Appendix 12 of the Railway Establishment Manual Second Edition page 34) have no statutory force and no writ is available for their enforcement. 12. MR. Ganguli, who later on took over the argument on behalf of the petitioners, referred me to section 3 (7) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which defines "railway servant" as any person employed by a railway administration in connection with the service of a railway. He also relied on (2) A. V. Joseph v. J. L. Lammond A. I. R. 1924 Rangoon 373 which held that a person engaged by railway to pass sleepers and who is paid by results partly by the Railway and partly by contractor is a Railway servant. The definition of "railway servant" in the Act, however, in my opinion, should not be taken to interpret the Railway Establishment Code or the Manual, when specific definition of "railway servant" has been given in the Code itself and such definition only is to be taken in consideration in interpreting the Code and the Manual. Mr. Ganguli next relied on another Bench decision in (3) Union of India v. Santi Kumar Banerjee and others A. I. R. 1967 Calcutta 129 in which it was held that Appendix IIA and other appendices of Railway Establishment Code of 1951 were not embodied in the Code of 1959 but have been embodied in the Railway Establishment Manual to avoid bulk and Appendix IIA which is Chapter II of the Manual as amended, by Railway Board's circulars are statutory. Mr. Ganguli also referred to several cases, in which the view that was taken was as observed in (4) Sashi Bhusan v. Union of India 1971 Lab. I. C. 546 (8-9) Orissa in following terms : "the Railway Board has no other power to issue directions, except under Rule 157 of the Code. Mr. Ganguli also referred to several cases, in which the view that was taken was as observed in (4) Sashi Bhusan v. Union of India 1971 Lab. I. C. 546 (8-9) Orissa in following terms : "the Railway Board has no other power to issue directions, except under Rule 157 of the Code. That Rule does not prescribe any particular form or formality to be complied with. In the absence of any particular form being prescribed as to how the rules should be made by the Railway Board, the directions issued by the Board, in the farm of letters from time to time for the guidance of subordinate authorities, must be taken to be rules made by the Board under the Code itself. . . . . . . the instructions contained in the aforesaid paragraphs (2301, 2315, 2318 of Chapter XXIII of the Establishment Manual. . . are statutory rules framed by the Railway Board in exercise of its powers under Rule 157 of the Code. " This view finds support in (5) M. P. Patil v. D. R. Khanna A. I. R. 1965 Bom. 267 in which the rules framed by the General Manager in exercise of his powers under Rule 157 of 1951 Code was held to have the force of law being framed under statutory rules. In (6) Harinder Mohan v. General Manager Northern Railway A. I. R. 1967 Delhi, 79, it was held that under Rule 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I (of 1959) which are admittedly rules framed under Article 369 of the Constitution, the Railway Board had full power to make rules of general application to non-gazetted Railway servants under their control and the order in question is a rule framed under Rule 157 of the. Code. 13. IN the present case the Chapter XXV relates to Casual Labour which, it appears, was brought into force by Railway Board letter No. E (NG)60c. L. / 13 of August 20 and 22, 1962. The rules 2501, Note 4 thereof prohibits artificial breaks of service and Rule 2511 provides for acquisition of temporary status by casual workmen. Breaches of the provisions of these rules have been alleged in the petition and implementation of the said rules by the Railway Administration has been prayed for on the contention that the rules are statutory. The rules 2501, Note 4 thereof prohibits artificial breaks of service and Rule 2511 provides for acquisition of temporary status by casual workmen. Breaches of the provisions of these rules have been alleged in the petition and implementation of the said rules by the Railway Administration has been prayed for on the contention that the rules are statutory. The powers of the Railway Board to frame rules of general application to non-gazetted railway servants under their control is provided in Rule 157 of the 1959 Code, By amended definition of railway servants in Rule 137, it appears that casual labour has been expressly excluded from the category of railway servants. The rules framed by the Railway Board relating the casual labour who are not railway servants are thus outside its powers under Rule 157. As the rules relating to casual labour have no statutory source, it cannot be said that the rules about casual labour in Chapter XXV of the Code are statutory. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to issue any writ for implementing rule of Chapter XXV of the Manual which have no statutory force. 14. IT may be noted that by Rule 137 of the Code, the rules of recruitment of non-gazetted railway servants have been embodied in Chapter I of the Establishment Manual and on that basis, there can be no dispute that provisions of the said Chapter are statutory. In sub-section IV of the Chapter provisions for Class IV railway servants have been made. In respect of the procedure for recruitment, by sub-rule (xiii), certain rights have been conferred on casual labour entitling them, with substitutes and temporary workmen to a prior claim to permanent recruitment and to be considered for regular employment with-out going through Employment Exchanges. It is further provided that: a register of casual labour recording their seniority is to be. maintained for future employment as casual workmen or regular employment for empanelment for regular Class IV posts. These rules, being within Chapter I of the Manual are statutory and appropriate writs for enforcement of such rights in cases of proved breaches will undisputably lie. It is further provided that: a register of casual labour recording their seniority is to be. maintained for future employment as casual workmen or regular employment for empanelment for regular Class IV posts. These rules, being within Chapter I of the Manual are statutory and appropriate writs for enforcement of such rights in cases of proved breaches will undisputably lie. The Rules before us are however for writs on the respondents for treating the petitioners in temporary service with effect from their respective completion of six months' continuous service as casual labour and for payment of all allowances attached to workmen of temporary status, as also for forbearing the respondents from creating artificial breaks in service or retrenching them from service. Such acts on the part of the respondents, if proved, will amount to breach of the provisions only of Chapter XXV of the Establishment Manual. For enforcement of the said provisions, as we have seen, no writ will lie as they are not statutory provisions having any force of law, as was also held in Biswanath Mukherjee's case referred to above. 15. THE petitioners have also alleged discriminatory treatment against them by the respondents in matters of granting temporary status to them with consequential benefits, to which temporary staff is entitled under Chapter XXIII of the Manual. We have referred to the statements in the petition as also those in the affidavits on behalf of the respondents and it would appear therefrom that there has been no such discriminatory treatment to the petitioners nor has there been any breach of the provisions of Chapter XXV of the Manual. In fact, while the petitioners Nos. 4, 11 and 12 are dead and the petitioner No. 14 is no longer interested, the petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 have been absorbed against permanent vacancies subject to their being recruited in Class IV staff after selection. The petitioners Nos. 1, 8 and 9 are working under sanction subject to their discharge after expiry of sanction unless empanelled for recruitment to Class IV staff. These workmen are the senior-most casual labourers, so that the specific instances of discrimination as given by the petitioners appear to be without foundation. The petitioners Nos. 1, 8 and 9 are working under sanction subject to their discharge after expiry of sanction unless empanelled for recruitment to Class IV staff. These workmen are the senior-most casual labourers, so that the specific instances of discrimination as given by the petitioners appear to be without foundation. In the concluding lines of paragraph 7 of the affidavit affirmed on November 30, 1971 on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that whenever necessary under any sanction to attend any job or when vacancies occur in Class IV service, the senior casual labourers are recruited, under the sanction and are screened by the Selection Board for empanelment for recruitment in Class IV service. This is in conformity with the statutory rule of clauses (xi) and (xiii) of section IV of Chapter I of the Manual. No specific instance of its breach has been established and these matters are outside the scope of the present rules. In Annexure II of the Fourth Supplementary affidavit of the petitioners there is a list of workmen who have been given temporary status on 15. 12. 71 on completion of six months' continuous service. These workmen are stated to be junior in service to the petitioners Nos. 1 and 13, who are now the only petitioners. The grant of temporary status to those persons is preceded by their service as casual labour since June 15, 1971. It may be noted that in the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 13 are retained in service in view of the order of the High Court though there was no work and the said petitioners also refused to work in sanctioned work; it is not alleged by the said petitioners that there was any readiness on their part to work in sanctioned work and as we have seen, in like work, the said workmen joined. 16. IN respect of the other rule C. R. No. 7394 (W) of 1969 no specific case of discrimination has been pointed out in Court, while all charges of discriminatory treatment to the petitioners or their being superseded by junior workmen have been denied in the affidavit-in-opposition. 16. IN respect of the other rule C. R. No. 7394 (W) of 1969 no specific case of discrimination has been pointed out in Court, while all charges of discriminatory treatment to the petitioners or their being superseded by junior workmen have been denied in the affidavit-in-opposition. On facts, as appearing from the affidavits it is impossible to hold that there has been any discrimination or denial of equal opportunity as per rules to the petitioners in matter of their employment as casual labour or in connection with their attaining temporary status. The last point urged is that the petitioners have been retrenched from their service without payment of retrenchment compensation as enjoined in section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The section provides for three conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen who are in continuous service for more than one year under an employer and they are (a) one months' notice in writing indicating reasons of retrenchment and also expiry of the period of notice or payment of wages for notice period provided that no notice necessary if retrenchment under an agreement providing for termination : (b) payment to workmen at the time of retrenchment compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months : (c) notice in prescribed manner on the appropriate Government. Reliance was placed on the decision in (7) Somu Kumar Chatterjee v. District Signal Tele-communication Engineer and others 1970 Lab. I. C. 629 (Patna) in which it was held that the conditions (a) and (b) above are obligatory and if no retrenchment compensation is paid, the retrenchment order is bad in law and invalid. On the above authority Mr. Ganguli contends the respondents should be restrained by a writ of Mandamus commanding them to forbear from retrenching the petitioners which is being done without compliance of section 25f. 17. THE argument on this point appears to be misconceived. Casual Labour, as we have seen, refers to labour whose employment is seasonal, intermittent, sporadic or extends over short period. It is always on projects or sanctioned scheme so that no notice for termination of service is required, as the employment, by its nature, continuous during the completion of the project or the period of sanction and is saved by the proviso to clause (a) of section 25f. It is always on projects or sanctioned scheme so that no notice for termination of service is required, as the employment, by its nature, continuous during the completion of the project or the period of sanction and is saved by the proviso to clause (a) of section 25f. Clause (b) in the facts of the case has no application, as the petitioners Nos. 1 and 13 in C. R. No. 5701 (W) of 1968 never worked continuously for six months so as to attract the provisions of clause (b) which provides for this benefit to workmen in continuous service of not less than one year. None of the petitioners also in C. R. No. 7394 (W) of 1969, who are pressing this rule, completed six months' continuous service when the rule was issued, as will appear from paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioners have accordingly no right to have declaration that the alleged retrenchment or any attempt therefor in respect of the petitioners before us, if it was the retrenchment alleged, which however it is not, is illegal and invalid. 18. FOR all these reasons, the rules fail and are discharged, without any order as to costs in the circumstances. All interim order in the said rules are also vacated.