Amitava Roy, J.

1. The Communication dated 3.3.2009 of the Dy. Chief Commercial Manager (TC & Catg.) terminating the services of the Petitioner No. 2 as a commissioned vendor and also the notice dated 9.4.2009 issued by the Assistant Manager (Catering), Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., Regional office, Guwahati requiring the Petitioner No. 1 to return his stock and to clear the outstanding dues as a commission vendor under the Railways form the subject matter of challenge in the instant proceeding. As the Petitioners construe that the above steps tantamount to termination of their services as commissioned vendors, they are before this Court seeking redress.

2. I have heard Mr. A.K. Roy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Nair, learned Standing Counsel, Railways and Mr. GN. Sahewalla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Singh, Advocate for the Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. (hereafter for short referred to as the 'Corporation').

3. In short, the Petitioners' pleaded case is that, after the death of the father of the Petitioner No. 1 who had been engaged as a commission vendor of a tea stall at the Guwahati Railway Station under the Respondent railways on 6.11.1999, he (Petitioner) on his application, was granted a commission vendor licence in place of his father. That was with effect from 7.4.2000. According to the Petitioner No. 1, he has been continuing as such at the Guwahati Railway station since then till date. The husband of the Petitioner No. 2 was also a commission vendor of a pan shop at the said Railway Station and after his demise, she (Petitioner No. 2) had obtained a licence to the said effect on and from 1.2.1989 and has been engaged as such since then till date. The Petitioner No. 3 also claims to be a licensed commission vendor of a tea stall at the Guwahati Railway Station since 1967. He is presently aged 71 years.

4. In the year 2006, the Railways took a decision not to renew the licences of the commission vendors and initiated a process of screening such vendors for the purpose of their absorption in Group D posts, limiting the exercise, however, to the persons who had not attained the age of 60 years. In connection with the said process, the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were called for necessary medical test which they did not attend being of the view that if they are absorbed with only 8 years of service left to them, they would not be adequately benefited thereby. As in view of the steps taken by the Railways the future of the commissioned vendors became uncertain, a few of them approached this Court with several writ petitions in which interim orders were passed maintaining the status quo of their engagement. While the matter rested at that, the impugned communication was issued.

5. The Railways have not filed any affidavit In their affidavit the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have pleaded that in terms of the policy formulated by the Railways the commission vendors who have not attained the age of 60 years and are medically fit and also satisfy the other conditions of eligibility as stipulated in a series of official communications starting from the one 13.12.1976, it has been decided to absorb them in Group D posts. It has been inter alia contended that till the process is complete, the registered licensed commission vendors are allowed to continue on the identical terms and conditions as before under the Corporation. As the Petitioner No. 3 has meanwhile attained the age of 71 years. according to the Corporation, he is not eligible to be considered for absorption in terms of the said policy. However, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 though eligible, did not respond to the calls for medical test and therefore, the impugned action is valid.

6. Mr. Roy has submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 though had been initially misled by the fact that his absorption in Group D post under the Railways would be disadvantageous to him, has on second thought submitted a representatio