JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.K. Sarkar, the learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Rly and Mr. I.A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The matter pertains to engagement of Labour Sardar for loading and unloading parcel packages, traveling cash safe etc at Baradarpur Railway station. The disputed engagement of Labour Sardar was looked into by this Court when the respondent No.5 filed a writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.5939 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2016 passed the following orders: ” Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar , learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Borkataky, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3. Mr. A.L. Mandal, learned counsel represents respondent no. 4. Pertinent to note that engagement of a Labour Sardar for loading and unloading of parcel goods is not a regular employment under the N.F Railways. It is purely on need basis. Petitioner raises grievance against the letter dated 2.4.2015 issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, N.F. Railway, Lumding, allowing the private respondent no. 4 to work as Labour Sardar. The said order, however, makes it clear that the engagement is by way of a temporary arrangement to tackle the B.G. Trains that has been introduced after gauge conversion work. The ground of challenge is that the engagement of respondent no. 4 have virtually taken away the livelihood of the petitioner, who was earlier engaged as Labour Sardar. Mr. I.A. Talukdar submits that on and from 6.3.2009, the petitioner was engaged as a Labour Sardar and he had discharged duties and functions to the satisfaction of all concerned. He was also assigned as a Labour Sardar for loading and unloading of parcel goods at the Badarpur New Railway Station (BG). Mr. Borkataky submits that the letter/order dated 2.4.2015 does not warrant interference, in as much as, the respondent no. 4 has been allowed to work as Labour Sardar only on temporary basis. In so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, he has been retained and allowed to work as Labour, and, therefore, there cannot be any grievance that the livelihood of the petitioner has been taken away. 4 has been allowed to work as Labour Sardar only on temporary basis. In so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, he has been retained and allowed to work as Labour, and, therefore, there cannot be any grievance that the livelihood of the petitioner has been taken away. It is also submitted that since the petitioner have already made representation to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, N.F. Railway, Lumding on 17.6.2015, the same would be considered and appropriate orders will be passed thereon. Having regard to the submissions above and the nature of employment of a Labour Sardar, this Court finds no justifiable grounds to make interference with the letter/order dated 2.4.2015 (Annexure-6). While doing so, a direction is also made to the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner on 17.6.2015 and to pass appropriate order within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today. If necessary, the respondent no. 2 shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no. 4. The experience gained by either parties for the purpose of loading and unloading of parcel goods shall also be taken into consideration while passing final order on the representation made by the petitioner. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.” 3. Pursuant to the said direction, the Station Manager, Badarpur, on being directed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, NF Rly, at Lumding issued notice to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 to attend the office on 01.09.2016 to consider their respective claims and for passing necessary orders as was directed by this Court. Consequently, vide communication dated 01.09.2016 (Annexure-E), the respondent No.5 has been asked to work as Labour Sardar replacing the writ petitioner No.1. Being aggrieved the petitioner No.1 along with other petitioners are before this Court. 4. Mr. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner No.1 was engaged to work as Labour Sardar vide order dated 02.04.2015 (Annexure-A) and since then he was performing his duties. However, vide communication dated 01.09.2016 he has been dislodged from the said assignment and replaced by the respondent No.5. 4. Mr. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner No.1 was engaged to work as Labour Sardar vide order dated 02.04.2015 (Annexure-A) and since then he was performing his duties. However, vide communication dated 01.09.2016 he has been dislodged from the said assignment and replaced by the respondent No.5. He submits that although the respondent No.5 had approached this Court and pursuant to which the respondent authorities were directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing while considering the experience gained on the job as well the respondent No.5, however, without affording the petitioner such opportunity passed the impugned order dated 01.09.2016. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and should be set aside. 5. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the N.F. Rly submits that in terms of the direction of this Court passed on 12.08.2016 in WP(C) No.5939 of 2015, the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 were summoned by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, N.F. Rly, Lumding vide notice dated 25.08.2016 requiring them to attend Office of the Divisional Railway Commercial Manager on 01.09.2016 at 15.00 Hrs. Pursuant to the notice, both the parties appeared and they were heard in person by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager on 01.09.2016. Upon hearing them and upon considering the experiences gathered by the rival parties, it was decided that the respondent No.5 being an experienced Labour Sardar since the year 2009, was allowed to work as Labour Sardar with effect from 01.09.2016. Accordingly, an order was passed allowing him to work as such while the engagement of the petitioner No.1 was cancelled. In doing so, according to Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the railway authorities has not violated the Court’s order and also the principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was heard. The learned counsel has also produced the relevant records. 6. Mr. I.A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.5 has experience of work as Labour Sardar since the year 2009. He has been performing the assignment given to him to the satisfaction of all concerned and with utmost sincerity. The learned counsel has also produced the relevant records. 6. Mr. I.A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.5 has experience of work as Labour Sardar since the year 2009. He has been performing the assignment given to him to the satisfaction of all concerned and with utmost sincerity. However, since the respondent authorities without assigning any reason had replaced him with the petitioner by appointing him on 02.04.2015, the respondent No.5 approached this Court and accordingly, a direction was given to the respondent authorities to hear the parties in person, consider their experiences gained from the job and thereafter to pass appropriate orders. In terms of the directions, the respondent No.5 and the petitioner No.1 were asked to appear before the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager on 01.09.2016 vide the notice dated 31.08.2016 issued by the Station Manager, Badarpur. On receipt of the said notice the respondent No.5 and the petitioner No.1 appeared before the authority. The respondent authorities considering the experiences gained by the respondent No.5 consequently decided to engage him vide order dated 01.09.2016 and he, therefore, submits that considering the steps taken by the respondent authorities in terms of the direction of this Court as well as the experiences gained by the rival parties, there is nothing wrong with the order dated 01.09.2016 and the same may not be interfered with by this Court. He also submits that however pursuant to the passing of the engagement order dated 01.09.2016, the respondent No.5 has not been allowed to perform the work as Labour Sardar and in fact it is the petitioner who has been continuing as Labour Sardar until now. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the materials available on record including the record produced by the learned counsel for the Railways. As may be noticed that engagement of Labour Sardar for the purpose of loading and unloading of parcel goods by the railway authorities is not a regular employment under the N.F. Railways and the same is only on need basis. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2016 after considering the issues, directed the respondent authorities to afford the parties an opportunity of hearing and take a decision thereafter. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2016 after considering the issues, directed the respondent authorities to afford the parties an opportunity of hearing and take a decision thereafter. Although the petitioner has categorically stated in his writ petition that the petitioner was never called or never heard before passing the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 by appointing the respondent No.5 and dislodging him from the work. On perusal of the records, I find that a notice was issued on 31.08.2016 which was duly acknowledged by the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that notice was not issued or received by him cannot be accepted. As contended by the respondents more particularly the Railway Authorities that both the parties were heard and their experiences from the job were duly accounted for and thereupon, it was only decided that the assignment should be given to the respondent No.5, although the parties have not annexed the manner in which the order has been complied with but the records reveals that incompliance with the Court’s direction passed on 12.08.2016, a detailed order was passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of the N.F. Railways on 19.05.2016 which reveals that appropriate consideration was made by the respondent authorities upon hearing the parties. 8. On the face of such records, the Court would not like to travel beyond what has been pleaded by the parties. Considering the fact that the parties were duly heard, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 engaging the respondent No.5 as Labour Sardar while dislodging the writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition having found to be without any merit, the same is accordingly stand dismissed. The parties shall however bear their own cost. 9. Considering the fact that despite the order of engagement passed in favour of the respondent No.5 on 01.09.2016, the petitioner has been allowed to continue with the work without their being any interim order from this Court. Since the writ petition has been considered and the same has been dismissed, the respondent authorities shall permit the respondent No.5 to perform the work in terms of the order dated 01.09.2016.