Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 591 (GAU)

Munmun Dutta v. Union of India

2009-08-20

AMITAVA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. In challenge is the letter dated 21.1.2009 issued by the Dy. CPO (H.Q.), N.F. Railway, forfeiting the petitioner's right for absorption/regularization against a Group D post under the Railways for her failure to respond to the process initiated in connection therewith. 2. I have heard Mr. A.K. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nair, learned Standing Counsel, Railways and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. A. Singh, advocate for the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (the Corporation). 3. In short, the petitioner's pleaded case is that, her husband was engaged as a commissioned vendor to vend in a tea stall on the Guwahati Railway Station in the year 1972. After his death in the year 1989, the licence was transferred to her name with effect from 9.3.1990 and she is continuing as such since then till date. 4. In the year 2006, the Railways took a decision not to renew the licences of the commissioned vendors and initiated a process for screening them who had not attained the age of 60 years for their absorption in Group D posts subject to the conditions of eligibility embodied in the policy formulated in connection therewith. As according to the petitioner, most of the licensed commission vendors comprehending that their prospects on such absorption were not very profitable, though aware of the process, did not respond thereto. The impugned letter followed and the petitioner is before this Court seeking redress. 5. The Railways have not filed any affidavit. The Corporation in its counter has in essence, asserted that with a view to rehabilitate the licensed commissioned vendors existing on the date of taking over of the catering services by it (Corporation), a policy was evolved under which subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein, they were decided to be absorbed against Group D posts. The process, however, was confined to those commission vendors who had not attained 60 years of age. The stipulations of medical fitness and the academic qualification of "read and write" were also prescribed. The petitioner admittedly did not associate herself with the process and, therefore, the impugned order was rightly passed. 6. Mr. The process, however, was confined to those commission vendors who had not attained 60 years of age. The stipulations of medical fitness and the academic qualification of "read and write" were also prescribed. The petitioner admittedly did not associate herself with the process and, therefore, the impugned order was rightly passed. 6. Mr. Roy has submitted that though the petitioner was aware of the process initiated in connection with the absorption of the licensed commissioned vendors in Group D posts under the Railways, she initially did not intend to participate therein. Referring to the pleaded averments in the writ petition, Mr. Roy has urged that in any view of the matter, as the petitioner at no point of time was intimated of the requirement of subjecting herself to medical test, the impugned action ought not to have been taken. As the impugned forfeiture of the petitioner's licence to vend at the Guwahati Railway Station is patently opposed to the letter and spirit of the policy, the same ought to be interfered with, he contended. The learned Counsel has also pointed out that the representation of the petitioner to the said effect submitted before the Commercial Manager, NF Railway is presently pending consideration and, therefore, judicial intervention is warranted for redress. 7. Mr. Sahewalla while supporting the impugned action has urged that it being apparent from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner though aware of the exercise undertaken for absorption of the licensed commission vendors against Group D posts under the Railways, she had abstained therefrom deliberately, the impugned decision cannot be faulted with. 8. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents available on record, this Court is of the view that the Railways having formulated a policy to be uniformly applicable to the existing licensed commission vendors for their absorption in Group D posts under it subject to the criteria of eligibility as prescribed, it would not be expedient to issue any direction that may amount to requiring it to depart therefrom. The very nature of the policy suggests a wholesome and considerate approach of the Railways being alive to the practical difficulties to which the licensed commission vendors would be confronted with if ousted from their engagements. It was, therefore, expected of them to respond to the related process. The very nature of the policy suggests a wholesome and considerate approach of the Railways being alive to the practical difficulties to which the licensed commission vendors would be confronted with if ousted from their engagements. It was, therefore, expected of them to respond to the related process. Consequently, if they fail without any justification to cooperate, in the opinion of this Court, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no order ought to be passed which may either have the effect of relaxing the rigour of the policy or undermining the sanctity thereof. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to accede to the prayer made in the instant petition for a direction to the Railways to permit the petitioners to continue as licensed commissioned vendors. The challenge made to the impugned action, therefore, fails. 9. The above notwithstanding, as the petitioner has submitted a representation before the Chief Commercial Manager, NF Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati seeking an opportunity to participate in the ongoing process for absorption in Group D post, it would be in the fitness of things, that a decision be taken thereon by the aforementioned authority. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that this Court has not made any comment on the merit of the petitioner's prayer made in the said representation and it would be within the exclusive discretion and domain of the respondent authority concerned to decide on the issue. 10. The petition stands closed in the above terms. No costs.