Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

We are however, not concerned with the validity of that rule as admittedly in the present case the petitioner did not sign any agreement. Ordinarily when a railway servant enters into a service agreement at the time of entering the railway service Rule 148 of the Railway Establishment Code, either the whole of it, or in modified form, is incorporated, as one of the terms of the agreement. In a case where a railway servant has entered into such a contract his services are liable to be terminated not only under Rule 148 but also under the terms of the agreement. In the present case the petitioner's services have not been terminated under the terms of an agreement but under Rule 148. We are therefore called upon only to decide the validity of Rule 148 of the Railway Establishment Code. I will however say a few words about the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner about the validity of Rule 143 also.

The learned Judge of the Nagpur High Court held that it was not necessary to decide whether the Security Rules were void as assuming they were, the order terminating the services of the petitioner could be sustained under Rule 148 of the Railway Establishment Code. The petitioner of that case then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of India. Several questions were raised before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and one of the questions was that if the services of a railway servant have been terminated under Rule 3 of Security Rules, or Rule 148 of Railway Establishment Code would the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution apply? Their Lordships dealing with this question observed as follows :

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that Rules 143 and 148 of the Railway Establishment Code are ultra vires inasmuch as they infringe the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel is that whereas in the case of railway servants an employee has to sign an agreement and there is a rule under which his service can be terminated by one month's notice, that is not the case in respect of other Government servants and there is therefore a clear discrimination. This argument is based on an assumption that the duties of all Government servants are of a similar nature and all Government servants are similarly situated. It would be noticed that Rules 143 and 148 of the Railway Establishment Code apply to all railway servants whom the Railway Establishment Code applies.

14. I may also notice that the petitioner has taken inconsistent pleas in this case. When faced with the difficulty that Rule 143 of the Railway Establishment Code cannot be invalidated under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, because Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act deals only with agreements and not with rules, learned counsel for the petitioner took up the position that though he did not sign the agreement he was required under the law to sign it and therefore it may be deemed as if he had signed it. Again, he takes inconsistent position when he says that inasmuch as there is no agreement under Rule 143, Rule 148 of the Railway Establishment Code cannot apply. I have already held above that the applicability of Rule 148 of the Railway Establishment Code does not depend upon there being an agreement under Rule 143 of the Railway Establishment Code and have therefore rejected the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.