Patbak, C.J. (Actg.)- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of removal of the petitioner passed by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, North-East Frontier Railway, Lumding. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Railway Manager, North-East Frontier Railway, Lumding which was also rejected. At the time of hearing Mr. A. R. Barooah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, takes a pre­liminary paint that as the Union of India is not impleaded as a party this petition is incompetent. According to the learned counsel, the Union of India is a necessary party and as the Union of India is not made party this petition cannot proceed. In this connection the learned counsel refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Ranjeet Mal vs. General Manager. Northern Railway, (1977) 1 S.C.C. 484 , where a similar question came up for consideration by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as to whether the Union of India is a necessary party. In that case the appellant was removed from service by the Railway authorities against which he preferred an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court held that as the Union of India was not inpleaded as a party the petition was not maintainable, against which there was Letters Patent appeal where the Division Bench also affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner in that case being aggrieved went up in appeal before the Supreme Court where their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that Union of India is a necessary party in a case of this nature and as the Union of India was not made a party the petition of the appellant was tightly rejected. The reasons given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court read as follows : "The employee was a servant of the Union, whose removal would be removal from servics of the Union. Any order which can be passed by any court on a chal­lenge of such removal would have to be enforced against the Union. The General Manager or any other authority acting in the railway administration is as much a. servant of the Union as the employee". Their Lordships further observed that the Union of India repre­sents the railway administration. The Union carries on admi­nistration through different servants. The General Manager or any other authority acting in the railway administration is as much a. servant of the Union as the employee". Their Lordships further observed that the Union of India repre­sents the railway administration. The Union carries on admi­nistration through different servants. Those servants all represent the Union in regard to activities whether in the matter of appointment or in the matter of removal. It cannot be denied that any order which will be passed on an application under Article 226 which will have the effect of setting aside the removal will fasten liability on the Union of India, and not on any servant of the Union. Accordingly the Supreme Court hold that the Union of India was a necessary party. Being faced with this predicament, Mr. S. N. Bhuyan, the learned council for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given seven days' time to implead the Union of India as party to this case. From the records it transpires that as back as on 1.4.81 the respondents filed the affidavit-m-opposition and this point was specifically taken in para 15 of the affidavit-in-opposition. Even inspite of the averment in the affidavit-in-opposition the petitioner did not take any steps for impleading the Union of India as a necessary party. It shows that there was laches on the part of the petitioner and for the laches of the petitioner we cannot give any premium by allowing the petitioner to implead the Union of India as a party at this stage. In the above view of the matter we find that this petition is not maintainable and accordingly it is rejected. The Rule is discharged.