The High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Railway Authorities if it is satisfied that the order is mala fide or based on no evidence or is arbitrary.

( 1 ) THE aforesaid two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of a learned Judge of this Court passed in a writ petition which was registered as C. O. No. 8649 (W) 1995.

( 2 ) BY the judgment under appeal the learned Judge has set aside an order of compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner made by the Senior Security Commissioner on May 9, 1995 which was Annexure B to the writ petition. However, the learned Judge directed that the period since the date of making the order of compulsory retirement till the date of passing the judgment under appeal shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Against the adverse findings made by the learned Judge against the writ petitioner, in the judgment under appeal, the writ petitioner has also preferred an appeal being F. M. A. T. 881 of 1996. As the two appeals have been preferred against the self-same decision of the learned Judge, they were heard analogously.

( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record and after considering the judgment under appeal in detail, we are of the view that there is no merit in the aforesaid two appeals.

( 4 ) THE writ petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted at R. P. F. Workshop at Kharagpur as Grade-I Inspector with effect from April 1, 1983 and was still continuing in the said post at the time when the order of compulsory retirement was served on him. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner alleged that while posted at R. P. F. Workshop at Kharagpur in the district of Midnapore, he was transferred to one Division from another Division along with other Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors for which he had to move a writ application in this Court on August 7, 1989 challenging the inter-divisional transfer. The said writ petition was disposed of on April 1, 1991, by an order of injunction restraining the Railway Authorities from giving any effect to the communication intimating the order of transfer of the writ petitioner. Inspite of the said order passed by this Court, according to the writ petitioner, he was not allowed to resume his duties at his original place of posting at Kharagpur Workshop in the District of Midnapore, but on the contrary he was again transferred from Kharagpur Division to Nagpur Division just after the judgment was delivered on the aforesaid writ petition. The writ petitioner had moved another writ application in this Court against the aforesaid order of inter-divisional transfer for the second time and obtained an interim order staying the operation of the order of inter-divisional transfer. The said writ petition is, however, till now pending for final disposal. According to the writ petitioner, the Railway Authorities having been frustrated in its move against the writ petitioner by such orders of this Court had put him under the supervisory control of a Junior Inspector, Grade-II by an order dated August 30, 1991 issued by the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway. As the promotion of the writ petitioner was withheld for a long time, the writ petitioner again moved a writ application in this Court for a direction upon the railway authorities to give him promotion to the rank of "assistant Security Commissioner" and the said writ petition is till now pending decision before this Court. The writ petitioner had to move another writ application in this Court against the order of deduction of his pay from his regular salary passed on the ground that he was paid over-payments during the period from June 23, 1989 to March 30, 1991 when the writ petitioner was on leave as per order of this Court. This writ application is also pending for final disposal. After passing various orders, the particulars of which have been mentioned herein above, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed against the writ petitioner which was challenged by him by moving a writ application which was registered a