JUDGMENT Hon'ble SINGH, J.—In this writ petition the petitioners has essentially challenged the order Annexure-5 dated 21.5.2001 pertaining to the guidelines for screening of the existing commission vendors who were running the stalls at the Railway Stations under the Western Railway more particularly in the case of the petitioners at Kota Junction. 2. The background for this was that a scheme was formulated in accordance with the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the order dated 13.12.1983 in Writ Petition No. 6804-05/1982 Shital Singh & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that existing commission bearers and vendors had been making efforts by representing for their absorption in the service of the Railways and were basing their claim on the earlier circular of the Ministry of Railways dated 13.12.1976 issued by the Joint Director, Traffic Commercial (c) II, Railway Board wherein it was provided that the commission bearers and vendors would be absorbed progressively as members in permanent Railway service. 4. Despite the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the right for absorption the Railway Administration, it appears did not take the necessary steps till the policy in this behalf was enacted by the Ministry of Railways, Railway Board on 6.11.2000 which has been placed as Annexure-4 on record. As per the aforesaid guidelines contained as Annexure-4 dated 6.11.2000 the directions issued were that no recruitment through any channel would be made in the group D category in the catering department and these vacancies would only be filled through screening and absorption of commission bearers and vendors such as the petitioners for this purpose the order under challenged Annexure-5 came to be issued on 21.5.2001. 5. The petitioners are in fact more aggrieved by the condition No. 3 contained in the order dated 21.5.2001, Annexure-5 which prescribes that candidates who are above 60 years of age their cases should not be sent for screening. 6. In the present case, it was submitted that out of the four petitioners the petitioner No. 4 Madan Lal has already died during the pendency of this petition though his legal representatives have been brought on record, subsequently names of the respondents No. 4/1 and 4/3 the LR's of Madan Lal were deleted as prayed by the petitioners. 6. In the present case, it was submitted that out of the four petitioners the petitioner No. 4 Madan Lal has already died during the pendency of this petition though his legal representatives have been brought on record, subsequently names of the respondents No. 4/1 and 4/3 the LR's of Madan Lal were deleted as prayed by the petitioners. So far as the other three petitioners are concerned it was submitted that the petitioner No. 1 Nehrumal Jain has since attained the age of 60 years though on the date of submitting the application, he was eligible as at that time he was 55 years of age. The petitioner No. 2 Rakesh Kumar Yadav has already been absorbed as such the petition on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 Rakesh Kumar has become infructuous as no relief is now required to be granted in his favour. So far as the petitioner No. 3 Smt. Geeta Devi is concerned she was already 60 years of age at the time of filing of the petition and as such was not entitled to be absorbed in accordance with the condition No. 3 of the order Annexure-5 dated 21.5.2001. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that the decision to absorb the commission bearers and vendors was taken as early as in the year 1976 vide order dated 13.12.1976 issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways but no action having been taken the matter was taken to the Court and ultimately vide order dated 13.12.1983 the writ petition came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Despite the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the process for absorption was not initiated and the petitioners kept on representing till the order Annexure-4 was issued on 6.11.2000 and even then the guidelines were issued only on 21.5.2001by which time the petitioners became ineligible or had very little time to serve and would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits on attaining the age of superannuation as they would not qualify for the same due to short tenure of service whereas if they continued as commission bearers/vendors they would have served for their life time as per the existing policy and even their children would have the right to be substituted in place of the existing vendors in the event of their death in incapacitation. Moreover as per condition No. 4 of Annexure-5, failure to appear for screening would even dis-entitle the present commission vendors to carry on their business. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that so far as the decision regarding condition with regard to the maximum age is concerned the same has been taken in accordance with the existing Railway Rules for retirement keeping in view the age of retirement for class D posts which is 60 years and therefore since the decision was for treating the commission vendors at par in the category of Group D posts the same criteria and age of superannuation was kept in mind and as such no person beyond the age of 60 years was considered to be eligible for being absorbed. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions it is no doubt true that no exception can be taken to the condition as contained in para No. 3 of the guidelines issued vide Annexure-5 dated 21.5.2001 in so far as it relates to the maximum age prescribing the eligibility as 60 years, indisputedly the age of superannuation for Group D posts under the Railway Establishment is 60 years. In that view of matter it cannot be said when the commission vendors were to be absorbed on Group D posts that the condition in para No. 3 of the circular suffers from any vice or could be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner so as to violate any of the rights of the petitioner. 10. Having held so it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the petitioners and their organizations had been representing for absorption and better conditions of service even prior to 1976 and therefore the Railway Establishment recognized their right and issued the circular in this behalf, being circular No. 76-TG/III/639/11 dated 13.12.1976 which has been filed by the respondents along with their reply and it is available at page 93 of the paper book recognizing the right to be absorbed. 11. 11. Similarly situated persons as the petitioners took up the matter and the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognizing the right of the commission bearers and vendors disposed of the petition taking note of the earlier circular dated 13.12.1976 observing that "we hope that the Government would take steps to absorb all the bearers and vendors as mentioned above as early as possible." One is constrained to observe that the hopes expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid order which is available as Annexure-R/2 with the reply at page 91 were belied and it was not till the order Annexure-4 came to be issued by the respondents on 6.11.2000 issuing the guidelines and the directions for absorption of the persons working as commission bearers/vendors and it took further 6 months for issuance of guidelines for the absorption on 21.5.2001 which are now challenged. The above facts only go to show that the matter had remained under consideration with the Railway Establishment over since 1976 and it was not till May 2001 that finally the guidelines were issued by the Railway department determining the criteria for the absorption of the persons working as commission vendors/bearers despite directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1983. It has thus taken nearly 25 years despite the circular of 1976 and nearly 18 years from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.12.1983 for issuing the guidelines in this behalf for absorption of the petitioners. Therefore, there appears to be some substance in what learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during this long period many such persons as the petitioners became ineligible on account of the inaction on the part of the respondents to frame the policies as was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under their order dated 13.12.1983. It is no doubt true that a person who enters service, enters the same with the hope of some amount for regularity and with a reasonable expectation for pensionary benefits. It is true that the time which was consumed by the respondents in issuing guidelines only as late as 21.5.2001 has been lost so far as the petitioners are concerned from 1976 to 2001 which if they had been absorbed by framing the scheme in time would have not only made them eligible for absorption but also retiral benefits on completion of qualifying service. 13. 13. The Railway therefore cannot turn round and take advantage of their own wrong and inaction and say that now the petitioners are ineligible for being absorbed as they have attained 60 years of age and also that they would not be permitted to continue as commission vendors or perform the work which they are otherwise performing on failure to submit for screening. The exercise of the aforesaid option would in fact tantamount to their being rendered unemployed in their old age with nothing to fall back upon. In their case the Railways should, in the facts and circumstances which should have been narrated above, be directed to allow them to continue and perform their duties as license vendors and commission bearers and vendors as they had been performing prior to the issuance of the order dated 6.11.2000 and also the guidelines Annexure 5 dated 21.5.2001. 14. Accordingly so far as the writ petition, pertains to the challenge to condition No. 3 of the order Annexure-5 dated 21.5.2001 prescribing the age of 60 years as the maximum age for being eligible for screening cannot be faulted. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed so far as the aforesaid challenge is concerned. 15. However, in view of what has been held hereinabove, it is directed that such of the petitioners who wish to continue to perform their duties in accordance with the policy and the terms of their license as commission vendors/bearers should be permitted to continue despite their having attained the age of 60 years. The para 4 of the order dated 21.5.2001, Annexure-5 is accordingly quashed as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no upper limit for the commission vendors/bearers under the aforesaid policy. It is not in dispute that the petitioners No. 1 and 3 have been continuing as commission vendors during the pendency of this petition also under the interim orders of this Court and they shall be permitted to continue if they so desire on the same term and condition of their license. 16. Subject to the above this petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of.