3 and 25 of 1960 respectively and December 15, 1959 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
and they challenge the companyrectness of both the majority and the minority views.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated April 6, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Appeals from the judgment and order date January 18, 1963 of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule 386 to 388 of 1961.
These three respondents had moved the Assam High Court for quashing the impugned orders terminating their services, and the writ petitions having been heard by a special Bench of the said High Court companysisting of three learned Judges, the majority opinion was that the impugned orders were orders of dismissal and as such, were outside the purview of Rule 149.
713 of 1962 arises out of a petition filed by the appellant Priya Gupta who was an Assistant Electrical Foreman employed by the North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and order dated May 27, 25, 1960, of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule Nos.
His services having been terminated by the respondent General Manager of the said Railway, he moved the Allahabad High Court under Art.
K. Garg and P.K. Chatterjee, for the intervener , in C.A. Nos.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar J. K. Subba Rao, and K.C. Das Gupta JJ.
delivered separate Opinion s. J.C. Shah J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
C. Ghose and P.K. Chatterjee, for the appellants in C. A. Nos.
711 to 713/1962 .
hereafter called the Code .
A.I.R. 1956 Patna 221 A.I.R. 1959 All.
They alleged that purporting to exercise its power under Rule 148 of the Code, the respondent, the General Manager North East Frontier Railway, terminated their ser vices and according to them, the said termination was illegal inasmuch as the Rule under which the impugned orders of termination had been passed, was invalid.
711/ 1962.
The learned single Judge who heard this writ petition rejected the pleas raised by the appellant, and the Division Bench which the appellant moved by way of Letters Patent Appeal summarily dismissed his Appeal.
That is why the Union of India and the General Manager, E.F. Railway, appellants 1 2 respectively, have companye to this Court with a certificate granted by the Assam High Court,.
His services were terminated by the Respondent General Manager of the said Railway r under Rule 148 of the Code and his writ petition to quash the said order has been dismissed by the Punjab High Court.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, R. Ganapathy Iyar and R.H. Dhebar, for the appellants in C.A. Nos.
The appellants plea has been rejected 1/SCI/64 44 by the said High Court both by the learned single Judge who heard his petition in the first instance and by the Division Bench which heard his Letters Patent Appeal.
According to this view, though Rule 149 may number be invalid, the impugned orders were bad because as orders of dismissal they were number justified by Rule 149.
837 839/1963 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Deka was a peon employed by the North East Frontier Railway, whereas Das was a companyfirmed clerk.
226 of the Constitution and challenged the validity of the order terminating his services on the ground that Rule 148 of the Code was invalid.
In the result, the three writ petitions filed by the three respondents respectively were allowed.
837 839/1963 .
That is how this group of four appeals raises a companymon question about the validity of Rule 148.
It is this dismissal of his Letters Patent Appeal which has brought the appellant to this Court by Special Leave.
M. Lall and V.D. Mahajan, for the appellant in C.A. Nos.
C.A. Nos.
614 OF 1962.
That is how the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
It is against these orders of dismissal that they have companye to this Court by special leave.
V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General, Naunit Lal and H. Dhebar, for the respondents in C.A. Nos.
At the hearing before the said Bench, the learned Addl.
December 5, 1963.
CIVIL APPEAL No.
CIVIL APPEALS Nos.
2, the General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, against the three respective respondents S.B. Tewari, Parimal Gupta and Prem Chand Thakur, under Rule 149 of the Code, were invalid.
The minority view was that Rule 149 itself is invalid, and so, the impugned orders were automatically invalid.
The first group companysists of four appeals.
714 of 1962 .
This plea has been rejected by the Assam High Court and the writ petitions filed by the two appellants have been dismissed.
837 839./1963 .
714/1962 arises out of a writ petition filed by Tirath Ram Lakhanpal who was a Class A Guard employed by the Northern Railway, New Delhi.
The first group of four appeals was first heard by a Constitution Bench of five Judges for some time.
C. Ghosh and P.K. Chatterjee, for the respondents in C.A. Nos.
K. Garg, M.K. Ramamurthi, S.C. Agarwal and D.P. Singh, for the intervener in C.A. No.
81/1961.
837 To 839 of 1963.
502 of 1958.
711 713 of 1962.
Thus, in these three appeals, the question about the validity of Rule 149 falls to be companysidered.
Civil Appeal No.
In the fresh set of rules framed in 1930 Rule 49 took the place of Rule XIII of the earlier Rules and was in these words R. 49.
The Judgment of P.B. Gajendragadkar, K. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah and N. Rajagopala lyyangar, JJ.
711 712 of 1962 arise from two petitions filed by the appellants Moti Ram Deka and Sudhir Kumar Das respectively in the Assam High Court.
Civil Appeal No.
The next group companysists of three appeals which challenge the decision of the Assam High Court holding that the orders of dismissal passed by appellant No.
711 714/1962 .
