JUDGMENT K. N. Misra, J. - In both these writ petitions common questions of law and fact are involved and as such, they are taken up together for decision. 2. In Writ Petition No. 2053 of 1979 petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, namely, Gopal Ishwari Prasad, Shyam Lal, Khairati Lal and Ram Ashish have challenged the impugned notices of termination dated 1-7-1979 issued by opposite party No. 2, Engineer-in-Chief (S & C Lucknow), regarding termination of their services. These notices have been annexed as Annexures 7 to 11 respectively the operation of which was stayed by order dated 31-7-1979 passed by this Court on the interim relief application moved by the petitioners. This order was passed in presence of the learned counsel for opposite parties. 3. In the other Writ Petition No. 3014 of 1979 the said petitioners have challenged the order dated 14-10-1979 issued by Inspector of Works, N.E. Railway Badshah Nagar Railway Station, Lucknow opposite party No. 3, ordering the petitioners to discharge their duties at Hasanpur-Sakari Project at Muzzaffarpur in the State of Bihar and directed them to report before Executive Engineer (Constructions) Muzaffarpur for further orders. This order was passed in reference to the order dated 14-10-1979 issued by Engineer-in-Chief (S & C) N. E. Railway, Lucknow-a reference of which has been made in these impugned orders contained in Annexures 2 to 6. The petitioners have challenged these orders of transfer and have prayed for their quashing in Writ Petition No. 3014 of 1979. The operation of these impugned orders, contained in Annexures 2 to 6 to the writ petition, was stayed by order dated 2-11-1979 passed by this Court. These interim orders were later on confirmed. 4. The case of the petitioners, as set out in Writ Petition No. 2053 of 1979, is that they were appointee as casual labour (Khalasi) in the year 1976. Ever since then they are working sincerely under Executive Engineer N. E. Railway Lucknow. Since the petitioners have completed approximately three years service, hence they acquired the status of temporary employee under the provisions of para 2501 (b) (i) of Chapter XXV of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter to be referred as the Manual). Having acquired the status of temporary employee the petitioners could not be retrenched by the impugned notices which are illegal and without jurisdiction and deserve to be quashed. Having acquired the status of temporary employee the petitioners could not be retrenched by the impugned notices which are illegal and without jurisdiction and deserve to be quashed. It has also been averred that the said cyclostyled retrenchment notices were issued in a casual manner, without applying the mind, as is indicated by the fact that the alternative reasons for retrenchment which are indicated in the cyclostyled notices, have all been retained without indicating as to which reason had been made applicable in making the proposed retrenchment. All these three conditions enumerated in the notices are mutually exclusive. The proposed retrenchment, therefore, cannot be sustained as no reason has been indicated for taking recourse to retrenchment of the employees by the department. The petitioners have also narrated facts indicating that they are in continuous service of more than six months and, as such, they have acquired the status of temporary employee under the provisions of Para 149 of Indian Railway Establishment Code. Volume 1, and their Services cannot be terminated without giving them, notices as is required under the said provision. The petitioners have further asserted that persons junior to them, who were working in the same category of service in the same department have been retained; hence, the action of retrenchment of the petitioners is illegal being violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also of the rule `first come last go'. The petitioners have also challenged the impugned notices on the grounds that no category-wise seniority list of all the employees, working in the department was made, nor reasons for retrenchment were communicated to the petitioners and they have also not been paid retrenchment compensation while serving retrenchment notice on the petitioners, hence the impugned notices of retrenchment are illegal, without jurisdiction and void and the petitioners services cannot be terminated in this manner. The petitioners have also placed on record their service records for the periods since their appointment in the year 1976, contained in Annexure Nos. 2 to 6. With reference to these service records they have averred that they have been working continuously ever since their employment and were transferred from one place to another. The 'petitioners assert that they were not employed as casual labour in any particular project, nor they can be treated as such while effecting retrenchment. 2 to 6. With reference to these service records they have averred that they have been working continuously ever since their employment and were transferred from one place to another. The 'petitioners assert that they were not employed as casual labour in any particular project, nor they can be treated as such while effecting retrenchment. The petitioners were employed in the Survey and Construction Unit of N. E. Railway and not as casual labour in a project, hence after having served for more than six months they have acquired the status of temporary employee and will be entitled to benefit of Note-2 of para 2501 of the Manual and so they cannot be retrenched. 5. In Writ Petition No. 3014 of 1979 the petitioners have challenged the impugned order of transfer passed by opposite party No. 3 to Hasanpur Sakari Project at Muzaffarpur. State of Bihar, on the ground that the transfer order has been passed against service conditions of the petitioners and that it amounts to retrenchment in the garb of transfer and is also in violation of the stay order grantee by this Court in the aforesaid earlier writ petition. Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 have passed the transfer order in colourable exercise of power ignoring the Rules and Railway Board Circulars on the subject. According to the petitioners they cannot be transferred to long distances to the State of Bihar: The action of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 is mala fide, revengeful and unwarranted in law and discriminatory. 6. The opposite parties have opposed the petitions asserting that the petitioners were employed as casual labour in a project and so they had not acquired, the status of temporary employee on the ground of their working in the project for more than six months. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of opposite parties by D. S. Srivastava, Inspector of Works, N. E. Railway, Badshah Nagar, Lucknow, it is stated that it is incorrect to say that the petitioners have been working continuously since 1976. In fact, the services of the petitioners were discontinued due to unauthorised absence as per rules on the subject. In fact, the services of the petitioners were discontinued due to unauthorised absence as per rules on the subject. They were last appointed on the dates mentioned in the said paragraph according to which petitioner Sri Gopal was appointed on 31-5-1978, petitioner Shyam Lal was appointed on 15-3-1978, petitioner Ishwari Prasad was appointed on 22-9-1977, petitioner Khairati Lal was appointed on 5-10-1977 and petitioner Ram Ashish was appointed on 7-10-1977. It is admitted that they are working continuously since then. The petitioners were last employed on the project relating to conversion of Meter gauge to Broad gauge from Chapra to Varanasi. This project was sanctioned by the Railway Board on 26-11-1977. The Railway Boards sanction is contained in Annexure A-l to the writ petition. It will be relevant to notice that even according to the showing of the opposite parties in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, petitioners Ishwari Prasad, Khairati Lal and Ram Ashish were in service even since prior to the sanction of the aforesaid project by the Railway Board on 26-11-1977. The department in which the petitioners were employed has been stated in para 4 of the counter affidavit, according to which, the petitioners were employee on the Survey and Construction Organisation of N. E. Railway which is said to be temporary organisation itself. It is asserted that no casual employee working on Survey and Construction Organisation Can attain temporary status irrespective of the period of service. In support of it Railway Boards circular dated 12-2-1974 contained in Annexure A-2, has been referred to. It is asserted that no casual employee working on Survey and Construction Organisation Can attain temporary status irrespective of the period of service. In support of it Railway Boards circular dated 12-2-1974 contained in Annexure A-2, has been referred to. A perusal of Annexure A-2, however, indicates that the said Railway Boards circular relates to wages of casual labour employed on Railway "Project" and a reference in this letter has been made to a decision of Railway Labour Tribunal 1969 wherein it was directed that :- "The provision contained in the manual in regard to project casual labour should be so amended as to provide that such casual labour will also be paid the scale rate if the same happens to be higher than the local rate, if the project casual labour is employed for a continuous period of six months in the same type of work." It has been clarified in the said Boards circular that as a result of this circular a project casual labourer will not acquire the status of temporary servant nor will he have the benefit of any future increments. The provisions of Para 2502 of the Manual were modified to the effect that :- "Casual labour employed on Railway Project will be paid l/30th of the appropriate scale rate, i.e., the minimum of the appropriate revised scale plus Dearness allowance, if the same happens to be higher than the local market rate of daily wages in respect of such casual labour, on completion of six months continuous service in the same type of work with effect from 1-6-1974 or on the date from which the six months service is completed whichever is later." In para 3 of the said Boards letter it is provided that:- "Casual Labour on scheduled employments who are governed by the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act (Central) and who are normally paid the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act will also be paid 1/30th of the appropriate revised scale plus dearness allowance, if the same happens to be higher than the minimum wages fixed under the said Act subject however to their fulfilling the conditions laid down in para 2 above." 7. With regard to the casual labour, employed on the project it has been clarified in para 4 of the said Boards letter that:- "The casual labour employed on projects paid on the basis of 1/30th of the scale rate will not be entitled to rights and privileges as admissible to temporary employees or to such, of those casual labour who acquire temporary status on completion of 4 months service in terms of Boards letter No. P 072/RLy69/3 (i) dated 12-7-1973." A perusal of the aforesaid Boards letter indicates that the labour employed on the project, who were paid on the basis of 1/30th of the scale rate admissible under the said Boards order, will not be entitled to rights and privileges as admissible to temporary employees or to such of those casual labour who acquired temporary status on completion of four months service in terms of Boards letter dated 12-7-1973. There is thus marked distinction between a casual labour, employed on a project, and those casual labour who acquired temporary status on completion of four months service. 8. The foremost crucial point which thus crops up for consideration is whether the petitioners were employed as casual labour on a project or not ? If they were employed as casual labour on a project, they will not acquire temporary status on completion of four months service. The determination of the question whether the petitioners acquired the status of a temporary employee or not, on completion of four months service, appears relevant because such employees will not be removable from service except as otherwise provided under para 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. I and Note 2 of Para 2501 of the Manual. The petitioners have asserted that they were employed on the Survey and Construction Organisation of N.E. Railway and they were transferred to several places and performed work assigned to them by their department. The case of the opposite parties is that the petitioners were employed on the Survey and Construction Organisation of the N. E. Railway, which is a temporary Organisation itself, hence no casual labour working on Survey and Construction Organisation can attain temporary status irrespective of the period of service. The case of the opposite parties is that the petitioners were employed on the Survey and Construction Organisation of the N. E. Railway, which is a temporary Organisation itself, hence no casual labour working on Survey and Construction Organisation can attain temporary status irrespective of the period of service. Regarding transfer of the petitioners to various places, it was submitted that the petitioners were put to work at various places in the project which was sanctioned by the Railway Board for conversion of the Meter Gauge into Broad Gauge from to Varanasi and ultimately at the time when the petitioners were served with notice of retrenchment, they were working on a project under Engineer-in-Chief opposite party No. 2, who would be deemed to be employer of the petitioners and, therefore, the notices of retrenchment, issued by him, are perfectly valid and justified in law. This argument appears to be attractive, but on close scrutiny of the facts we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept it. It has not been disputed that the petitioners were employed as casual labour in the Survey and Construction Unit, N.E. Railway Lucknow. but the assertion of the opposite parties is that the said organisation of this railway is a temporary organisation itself and, as such, the casual labourers would not acquire the temporary status irrespective of their period of service. This argument was sought to be supported by the aforesaid Boards letter dated 12-2-1974 (Annexure A-2). We have extensively quoted the contents of the aforesaid Boards letter, but the said letter does not support the aforesaid contention instead it lends support to the contention of the petitioners that they could get all the benefits of temporary status on completion of four months service in terms of Boards earlier letter 12-7-1973. Nothing has been shown to us that the casual labour, employed on non-project and who have put in more than four months service, would not be entitled to get the status of temporary employee on their completion of four, months service. The said Boards letter, contained in Annexure A-1 and also Note I to Para 2501 of the Manual, go to show that only those casual labourers, who are employed on a project, will not be entitled to claim status of temporary employee on the completion of four months of service. The said Boards letter, contained in Annexure A-1 and also Note I to Para 2501 of the Manual, go to show that only those casual labourers, who are employed on a project, will not be entitled to claim status of temporary employee on the completion of four months of service. The Casual Labour, other than those working on a project, will, however, acquire temporary status on the completion of, six months continuous service as is provided in Paragraph 2505 (b) (i) of the Manual. They will acquire the status of temporary employee although the organisation or unit in which they were employed was itself a temporary organisation or unit of the Railway department. No provision has been shown to us nor any Railway Boards order has been cited in support of the contention that if the organisation or the unit of the Railway department was itself a temporary organisation or unit, the casual labour, employed in such organisation or unit, will not be entitled to acquire the status of a temporary employee on the completion of six months service. 9. In L. Robert D' Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Rly. AIR 1982 SC 854 : (1982 Lab IC 811) the Supreme Court observed that (para 11):- "If a person belonging to the category of casual labour employed in construction work other than work-charged projects renders six months continuous service without a break, by the operation of statutory rule the person would he treated as temporary railway servant after the expiry of six months of ; continuous employment. It is equally true of even seasonal labour. Once the person acquired the status of temporary railway servant, by operation of law, the conditions of his service would be governed as set out in Chap. XXIII." It is thus evident that a casual labour, who is employed on non-project, will acquire the temporary status by rendering continuous service for six months without a break. It would have no effect if he is employed on a non-project work by a department which is itself a temporary department in the railways. In this view of the matter, it has no bearing if the Survey and Construction Organisation of the railways, in which the petitioners were employed as casual labour, was itself a temporary organisation, as has been asserted by the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, it has no bearing if the Survey and Construction Organisation of the railways, in which the petitioners were employed as casual labour, was itself a temporary organisation, as has been asserted by the opposite parties. If the petitioners were employed by the Survey, and Construction organisation of the railways as casual labour, but not on a project, they would acquire temporary status on rendering continuous six months service. However, if, on the other hand, they were employee on a project, they would not be entitled to that status of temporary employee in view of the provision contained in para 2301 (b) (ii) of the Manual which provides "labour on projects, irrespective of duration, except those transferred from other temporary or permanent employment." The words "except those transferred from other temporary or permanent employment" indicate that a temporary 0r permanent employee transferred to work on a project, which may be purely a work-charge project, will not lose his status as such by working on the project on transfer for any length of time or duration. The casual labour is not liable to be transferred and the conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to such labour as is provided in para 2501 of the Manual. No notice is required for termination of the services of a casual labour, except where notice is necessary under any statutory obligation. Their services will be deemed to have been terminated when they have absented themselves or on the close of the day as is provided in Para 2505 of the Manual. However, the Note appended to it clarifies that a casual labour who is to be treated as temporary after completion of six months continuous service, the period of notice will, be determined by the rules.; applicable to temporary Railway servants. It is thus evident that if a casual labour acquires the status of temporary Railway servant, he is entitled to all the benefits available to him under the Railway Code and the Manual. 10. The pre-requisite condition for acquiring the status of a temporary railway employee is that the casual labour should have been employed on a non project work and he should have rendered continuous service for six months without any break before acquiring that status. 10. The pre-requisite condition for acquiring the status of a temporary railway employee is that the casual labour should have been employed on a non project work and he should have rendered continuous service for six months without any break before acquiring that status. If he is employed on a project he would not acquire that status irrespective of the duration of continuous work on that project. 11. In the present case nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the Survey and Construction organisation of N.E. Railway by itself becomes a work-charged project so that the employees working on such Survey and Construction organisation, would be treated to be those working on a project and would thus not be able to attain temporary status irrespective of period of service. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for opposite parties urged that Survey and Construction organisation of the Railways has to perform the preliminary work of survey before the work of any project is executed. That may be so, but it has not been indicated that petitioners working on the project of Survey and Construction organisation of the Railways do not perform any other work besides working on the said project. In para 3 of the counter affidavit, referred to above, it has been averred that the Railway Board had sanctioned the project of conversion of Meter gauge to Broad gauge from Chapra to Varanasi on 26-11-1977 and it is said that the petitioners were employed to work on that project. We, however, find that some of the petitioners, namely, Ishwari Prasad, Khairati Lal and Ram Ashish were employed in the Survey and Construction organisation on 22-9-1977, 5-10-1977 and 7-10-1977 respectively and it is admitted that they are working continuously ever since then. It shows that even prior to the sanction of the said project, these petitioners were employees as casual labour in the Survey and Construction organisation of N. E. Railway. All the petitioners have asserted that they are continuously working since 1976. They have also annexed their service record in support of the said contention as Annexures 2 to 6 which indicate that there is no break in service ever since they were employed in the year 1976. There was no break in service by the time they were put to work on the aforesaid project which was sanctioned by the Railway Board on, 26-11-1977. There was no break in service by the time they were put to work on the aforesaid project which was sanctioned by the Railway Board on, 26-11-1977. It also appears that probably after the completion of the said project work they were transferred to their present place of posting on another project where they have been served with the impugned notice of retrenchment. During the period of their service, ever since 1976, they have been transferred and posted to various places although it has been asserted that at all such places they were put to work on a project. Since the petitioners had already acquired the status of temporary employee by the time they were put on work on the aforesaid project, namely "conversion of Meter gauge to Broad gauge from Chapra to Varanasi" which was sanctioned by Railway Board on 26-11-1977. Having rendered continuous service for more than six months, their transfer on the project work would not be treated to be a break in service or a fresh employment as a casual labour on the said project so as to disentitle them of the benefits available to a temporary employee, 12. The evidence, furnished by the petitioners from service records, maintained by the opposite parties, has not been controverted by any contrary evidence to establish that the petitioners had not put in continuous service for more than six months prior to their deployment on the work of the aforesaid project which was sanctioned by the Railway Board on 26-11-1977. We have, therefore, no option but to accept the contention of the petitioners that they have already completed six months continuous service in the Survey and Construction organisation of N. E. Railway, prior to their transfer on the said project work. It has also come on record that the petitioners continued to work in different Units of N. E. Railway to which they were transferred under the orders of their employer-Engineer-in-Chief (S & C) from time to time. It has also come on record that the petitioners continued to work in different Units of N. E. Railway to which they were transferred under the orders of their employer-Engineer-in-Chief (S & C) from time to time. We have given our anxious consideration to the argument of the learned counsel for opposite parties that the petitioners should be deemed to be employed afresh on the projects under the charge of the Executive Engineers under whom they were put to work from time, to time in the Survey and Construction organisation and that would amount to a break in their service when they were put to work under a new Executive Engineer, but we are unable to persuade ourselves to uphold that contention. Since the petitioners, as already observed above, had acquired status of the temporary employee, prior to their being put to work on the projects, they would not lose their status merely on the ground that they were transferred to the project work or from one Unit to another Unit in various projects. Having rendered continuous service for more than six months, the petitioners acquired the status of temporary railway servants prior to their transfer on the project work and, therefore, they were entitled to the benefits available to temporary railway servants and their services could not be terminated except as otherwise provided in Rule 2302 of the Manual which prescribes the mode, the manner and the methodology of terminating services of the temporary railway servants. In the present case the said prescribed procedure has not been carried out. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the termination of services of the petitioners, being in breach of Rule 2302 of the Railway Establishment Manual, was invalid. In the result the termination of the petitioners services on the basis of the impugned notices, cannot be sustained for the reasons stated above. 13. In tile result, Writ Petition No. 2053 of 1979 succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned notices of termination of services of the petitioners, contained in Annexures 7 to 11, are hereby quashed. It would, however, not disentitle the opposite parties from taking appropriate action regarding termination of petitioners services, if they so like, after following prescribed procedure and in accordance with law. 14. In Writ Petition No. 3014 of 1979 the petitioners have sought quashing of order of transfer contained in Annexures 2 to 6. It would, however, not disentitle the opposite parties from taking appropriate action regarding termination of petitioners services, if they so like, after following prescribed procedure and in accordance with law. 14. In Writ Petition No. 3014 of 1979 the petitioners have sought quashing of order of transfer contained in Annexures 2 to 6. As already mentioned above, the petitioners have asserted that they were not employed on a project as casual labour. They have further contended that they were transferred from time to time and were put to work at several places. They cannot, therefore complain to orders of transfer passed against them. Since, as already observed above, they had acquired status of temporary employee prior to their being put to work on projects and, as such, there appears to be no illegality in the order of trails, fer passed against them which apparently was passed on account of reduction of work load on the place of their present posting They could, therefore, be transferred and put to work on Hasanpur-Sakari Project, under Executive Engineer (Construction) Muzaffarpur, State of Bihar. We do not find any illegality in the impugned orders of transfer. 15. In the result, Writ Petition No. 3014 of 1979 fails and is hereby dismissed. Writ petition No. 2053 of 1979 stands allowed as aforesaid. 16. The stay orders are hereby vacated. 17. Parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs in both the aforesaid writ petitions.