Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was employed by the respondent-Railway as a casual labourer on 16-3-1976. He worked with the Railway till 30-9-1976 without break. Oh 30-9-1976 his service was terminated abruptly and orally, for the reason that he was "found medically unfit in class B1 (AMC/ERN MG. No. 158/C of 30-9-76/3-10-76)." (see Ext. PI). The petitioner was found unfit by the Assistant Medical Officer. However, on the petitioner's request he was sent for a further examination by the Divisional Medical Officer on 24-11-1976. The result of that examination has not yet been communicated to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Divisional Medical Officer has confirmed the report of the Assistant Medical Officer. The petitioner has approached this Court for a declaration that the termination of his service with effect from 30-9-1976 was illegal and void, and for consequential reliefs. 2. Petitioner's counsel Shri M. M. Cherian submits that the petitioner was a casual labourer with temporary status having continuously worked with the Railway for more than four months. This fact is not disputed. Counsel therefore submits that the petitioner was entitled to 14 days' notice as provided under Para.2302 of Chapter XXIII of the Manual, the provisions of which are applicable to a casual labourer with temporary status. Counsel relies upon the decision of this Court in O.P. No. 3211 of 1976, which was confirmed in W. A. No. 162 of 1978, to the effect that in the case of a casual labourer with temporary status no medical examination was required to confer upon him such temporary status. In that case this Court held that a casual labourer with temporary status, who was medically examined for the purpose of absorption as a regular Class IV employee and was found medically unfit, was not liable to be terminated otherwise than by the notice postulated under Para.2302. This Court stated that refusal to absorb him as a Class IV employee on the ground that he was medically unfit did not automatically deprive him of his status as a casual labourer with temporary status. Such a person could be terminated only subject to the required notice. Counsel - therefore submits that the service of the petitioner having been illegally terminated without notice he is entitled to a declaration that it has not so far been terminated and to all the consequential benefits. 3. Such a person could be terminated only subject to the required notice. Counsel - therefore submits that the service of the petitioner having been illegally terminated without notice he is entitled to a declaration that it has not so far been terminated and to all the consequential benefits. 3. Respondents' counsel Shri M. C. Cherian contends that an employee who is medically unfit has no right to remain in employment. The petitioner was found unfit and he was therefore liable to be terminated. That is why his service was terminated by Ext. P1. Notice postulated under Para.2302, counsel says, can be dispensed with in the case of a person found disqualified on medical grounds. Shri M. C. Cherian further submits that a casual labourer does not automatically attain temporary status on completion of four months. He attains such a status only upon conferment of the same by a declaration. 4. I shall deal with the last submission of the respondents' counsel first. Neither the Manual nor the statute seems to contain any provision which says that a specific declaration is required for conferment of temporary status. No provision to that effect has been brought to my notice. Provisions of Para.2501(b)(i) and (iii) of the Manual on the other hand specifically say that a casual labourer who has worked for more than four months without break "will be treated as temporary". Note 2 to that paragraph is also to the same effect. Clause (a) of Para.2511 refers to casual labour "treated as temporary." Clause (b) of that paragraph refers to casual labour "who acquire temporary status". So does Para.2512. These provisions indicate that a casual labourer is treated as a temporary railway servant on the expiry of the requisite period of four months without any formal conferment of such status by a declaration. 5. The result of a casual labourer attaining temporary status is stated in Para.2511 which says that he is entitled to all the rights and privileges mentioned under Chapter XX11I in respect of temporary railway servants. Para.2302 of that Chapter provides for notice before the service of a temporary railway servant is terminated. It reads: 2302. Termination of service and periods of notice. Para.2302 of that Chapter provides for notice before the service of a temporary railway servant is terminated. It reads: 2302. Termination of service and periods of notice. (1) Service of a temporary railway servant shall be liable to termination on 14 days' notice on either side provided that such a railway servant shall not be entitled to any notice of termination of his service (1) if the termination is due to the expiry of the sanction to the post which he holds or the expiry of the officiating vacancy or to his compulsory retirement due to mental or physical incapacity or to his removal or dismissal from service as a disciplinary measure after compliance with the provisions of clause (2) of Art.311 of the Constitution of India; xx xx xx xx (emphasis supplied) Notice can be dispensed with where the termination is due to compulsory retirement owing to mental or physical incapacity. Compulsory retirement is a concept which is not applicable to casual labour. Compulsory retirement is provided for under R.2046 of the Railway Establishment Code Vol.II which postulates a notice of three months. The Manual provides for compulsory retirement due to mental or physical incapacity on condition that the employee is entitled to the privileges mentioned under Chapter XXVI. The provisions of Chapter XXVI are applicable to permanent as well as temporary employees. Casual labour with temporary status are not entitled to the provisions of Chapter XXVI. They enjoy the rights and privileges of temporary employees only in so far as the provisions of Chapter XXIII are concerned. In the circumstances, respondents' counsel's argument that compulsory retirement, which is a matter what is provided for under Chapter XXVI in respect of regular employees, is one of the reasons for dispensation of notice in the case of casual labourers, even after they are qualified for temporary status, is unsustainable. A casual labourer with temporary status, who is entitled to all the rights and privileges of Chapter XXIII, is entitled to a notice before his service is terminated. That notice is what is contemplated under Para.2302, namely, 14 days' notice. In the absence of such notice, the termination is invalid. This is so even when he is declared unfit on medical grounds: W. A. 162/78. That notice is what is contemplated under Para.2302, namely, 14 days' notice. In the absence of such notice, the termination is invalid. This is so even when he is declared unfit on medical grounds: W. A. 162/78. O. Shri M.C. Cherian's contention that an employee who is mentally or physically unfit has no right to continue in the employment of the railway is, as a proposition, unchallengeable. But the termination must be according to law. It is open to the Railway, as it is even now, to terminate the service after giving the employee the required notice of 14 days. If only that was done when it should have been done, the Railway would have saved for itself considerable amount of public fund. It is the failure on the part of the Railway to act in accordance with the provisions of the Manual in the matter of terminating the service of the petitioner that has brought about the present litigation and the consequential financial loss for the Railway. For the reasons stated by me, T declare that the petitioner's service has not been terminated and that he is entitled to the consequential reliefs. The O.P. is allowed in the above terms. No costs.