C.A.@ SLP(C)No.22212/18

    NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1382    OF 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.22212 of 2018]

Union of India & Ors. ... Appellants

Versus

Md. Samim Azad ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This civil appeal is filed by the Union of India

through the General Manager, Eastern Railway and others,

aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of Calcutta

High Court passed on 31st August 2017 in F.M.A. No.878 of

2017.

3. The  dispute  relates  to  appointment  of  a  halt

contractor at the railway station.  On instructions, we

were informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General

that  there  are  three  types  of  railway  stations,  viz.,

Block  Station,  Flag  Station  and  Halt  Station.   Halt

station,  is  a  station  where  signalling  system  is  not

1

C.A.@ SLP(C)No.22212/18

available and train stoppages are controlled by railway

time  table.   Halt  contractor  is  a  contractor  who  is

appointed  by  Railways  to  sell  tickets  (printed  card

tickets) on commission basis and as per the terms of the

contract.

4. The  deceased  father  of  the  respondent-original

petitioner in Writ Petition No.12126 (W) of 2017, filed

before the Calcutta High Court, was appointed as a halt

contractor and the contract period had expired in the year

2010.  There was no renewal of the contract for the period

beyond  2010.   Father  of  the  respondent-original  writ

petitioner had died on 05th December 2016.  On the request

made by the respondent-original writ petitioner, during

the lifetime of his father he was allowed to sell tickets

in the halt station at Pirtala.  By notification dated

16th February  2017,  the  appellants  have  issued

advertisement  inviting  applications  for  appointing  the

contractor.  The respondent-original writ petitioner also

participated in the selection process for the purpose of

appointment as a contractor.  Though he was one of the

shortlisted  candidates,  in  the  method  adopted  for

finalisation  of  contract  by  draw  of  lots,  he  was  not

successful.

2

C.A.@ SLP(C)No.22212/18

5. When the respondent-original writ petitioner was not

appointed, having participated in the selection process,

he filed abovementioned Writ Petition before High Court of

Calcutta mainly on the ground that as he has continued as

a halt contractor in the place of his father and having

regard  to  guidelines  issued  in  Circular

no.99/TIV/Halts/Policy  dated  17.05.1999,  he  is  entitled

for preference in appointment. The learned Single Judge of

the Calcutta High Court, by order dated 25.04.2017, by

recording  a  finding  that  on  the  date  of  death  of  the

father of writ petitioner, the contract between Railways

and the deceased father of the original writ petitioner,

was  not  existing,  rejected  the  claim  made  by  the

respondent-original writ petitioner.  

6. Against the said order, the respondent-original writ

petitioner has filed intra-Court appeal before the High

Court and Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the

appeal by setting aside the order impugned in the petition

with the direction to the Railway authorities to grant

preference to the original writ petitioner in terms of

clause VI of the Circular dated 17.05.1999 and to appoint

him as a halt contractor at Pirtala Halt Station within a

period of four weeks from the date of the order.

3

C.A.@ SLP(C)No.22212/18

7. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional

Solicitor General assisted by Mrs. Anil Katiyar, learned

counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Gupta, assisted by

Mr.  Shekhar  Kumar,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

respondent-original writ petitioner.

8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we

have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge

and also the impugned order passed by the Division Bench

of the Calcutta High Court and other material placed on

record.

9. It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  father  of  the

respondent-original  writ  petitioner  was  appointed  as  a

halt contractor, but contract period expired in the year

2010.  Thereafter, there was no renewal of contract either

in the name of the deceased father or in the name of the

writ petitioner. The father of respondent-original writ

petitioner  died  on  05.12.2016.  Though  the  contract  in

favour  of  the  original  petitioner  expired  in  the  year

2010,  on  request  made  by  the  respondent-original  writ

petitioner, he was allowed to sell tickets on behalf of

the Railways.  Clause VI of the circular dated 17.05.1999

of which benefit is claimed by the respondent-original

writ petitioner, reads as under :  

4

C.A.@ SLP(C)No.22212/18

“VI.  Appointment of heirs and successors of deceased halt contractors :

Appointment  of  heirs  and  successors  of deceased  halt  contractors,  in  the  event  of death  of  the  halt  contractor,  may  be considered  along  with  other  applicants  and preference  will  be  given  to  the  heirs,  all other things being equal.”

10. In the impugned order, the Division Bench of the

Calcutta High Court has held that as the appellants have

permitted the respondent-original writ petitioner to work

in the place of his ailing father, as such, he is to be

given the benefit of the circular.  It is not in dispute

that the contract was valid only up to the year 2010.

Merely  because  the  respondent-original  petitioner  was

permitted by the appellant-Railway authorities to work in

the place of his ailing father, he cannot, as a matter of

right,  claim  preference  as  an  heir  of  contractor.

Further,  it  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  when  the

notification  was  issued  inviting  applications,  he  has

participated in the selection process but when he was not

emerged as a successful person for award of the contract,

he has filed writ petition questioning the appointment of

new contractor. As the contract which expired in the year

2010, was not renewed either in the name of the deceased

5

C.A.@ SLP(C)No.22212/18

father of the original writ petitioner or in the name of

the writ petitioner, we are of the view that the High

Court committed error in directing to give preference and

to appoint him as the halt contractor. Merely because, the

respondent-original writ petitioner was permitted to act

as a halt contractor on his request, he cannot be treated

as an existing contractor. Undoubtedly, the contract which

was granted to his late father was expired in the year

2010.  It  appears  from  the  notification  issued  by  the

appellant authorities inviting applications for award of

contract for selling tickets that they have permitted, the

existing contractors and the contractors whose term is

coming to an end within a period of 90 days, to apply in

response to notification.  

11. In view of the expiry of the contract of his late

father in the year 2010, the respondent cannot claim as an

heir of contractor for giving preference, as pleaded by

him.  In any event, we are of the view that no right of

the writ petitioner, much less any fundamental right, is

violated so as to seek directions for his appointment as a

halt contractor as granted by the Division Bench of the

High Court.

6

C.A.@ SLP(C)No.22212/18

12. It  is  also  brought  to  our  notice  by  the  learned

Additional Solicitor General, in the course of hearing, by

referring  to  the  rejoinder  affidavit  filed  by  the

appellants, that the respondent was allowed only on his

request when it was represented that his father was sick

and in his place he was allowed to work temporarily on

sympathetic and humanitarian grounds. It is specifically

stated  in  the  rejoinder  that  the  father  of  the  writ

petitioner was also working as a Primary School Teacher

under  the  Department  of  Primary  School  Education,

Government of West Bengal and gained unlawfully pecuniary

benefits from both Central Government and State Government

organisations.   

13. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that

the  order  impugned  is  liable  to  be  set  aside.

Accordingly, same is hereby set aside.  Civil appeal is

allowed with no order as to costs.

.................... J. [R. Banumathi]

.................... J. [R. Subhash Reddy]

New Delhi February 01, 2019

7