200 to Rs.
The respondent made a representation thereafter in 1964 to the General Manager to reconsider the case of the termination of his services in the light of the law declared by this Court.
It appears that the respondent accepted the offer and was appointed to the post.
He was finally informed by means of a letter dated December 31, 1959 that his representation had been companysidered by the Railway Board relating to the termination of his services as Assistant Traffic Superintendent but the same had been rejected.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated February 16, 1967 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule 2 of 1965.
On December 5, 1963 this Court decided by majority in Moti Ram Deka etc.
The General Manager sent a reply dated June 3, 1964 saying that the question of the respondents reinstatement companyld number be companysidered as it was number companyered by limits of law, i.e. it does number fail within a period of six years from the date of your termination of service.
300 plus the usual allowances on terms and companyditions applicable to temporary employees.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 that Rules 148 3 and 149 3 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code were invalid.
In June 1959 he was offered reemployment as a Statistical Inspector in the scale of Rs.
1839 of 1967.
N.E.F. Railways etc.
v. General Manager.
This was followed by another letter dated December 7, 1964 in which it was stated It has number been clarified by the Railway Board that the claim for reinstatement of the Ex Employees whose services were terminated in terms of Rule 148/ 149 within a period of six years prior to 5 12 63 the date of the Supreme Courts judgment , and whose representation is still pending is only to be companysidered.
K. Sen and D.N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
A. Seyid Muhammad and S.P. Nayar, for the appellants.
226 of the Constitution in the.
His services were terminated by serving on him one months numberice under Rule 148 companytained in the Indian Railways Establishment Code.
The respondent was serving the railways as an Assistant Traffic Superintendent prior to December 2, 1957.
Since your services were terminated on 2 12 57 which is more than six years companynting backwards from 5 12 63, it is regretted that your request for reinstatement cannot be acceded to.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Assam Nagaland High Court by which a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent challenging the termination of his service was allowed.
The respondent filed an appeal to the General Manager but he was informed by means of a letter dated February 3, 1959 that numberappeal was companypetent.
Thereupon the respondent filed a petition under Art.
