JUDGMENT & ORDER :

The grievance expressed by the petitioners, who are 9 in numbers, is with regard to not recognizing the canteen run by the petitioners as a statutory canteen and as a result of which, the petitioners are deprived from the status of being a permanent Railway employees. On the other hand, the prayer of the petitioners has been resisted by the respondent/Railways by contending that the entire basis in raising the present claim is erroneous and accordingly, no rights, whatsoever of the petitioners have been violated and there is no enforceable legal rights.

2. Before going to the issue to be decided, it would be convenient to place the facts of the case in brief.

3. As noted above, the 9 numbers of petitioners have described themselves as staff of a canteen established in the premises of the Office of the General Manager (Construction) in the year 1987. The petitioners claimed that they have been appointed in various posts including Head Cook, Assistant Cook Helpers etc. in the year 1999. The petitioners further claimed that such appointments were made by a Committee constituted by the staff of the Office of the General Manager (Construction), Maligaon. The petitioners claimed that although they were appointed by the Staff Committee of the Employees, they are receiving all the benefits like Free Travel Passes, Residential Accommodations and Uniforms from the Railway Authorities. The petitioners claim to be catering to the requirement of more than 700 employees of the Organization.

4. The petitioners claim to have submitted representations to induct them formally in the services of the Railways on which a process also initiated in terms of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948. Though such process was initiated, the same has not been brought to a logical conclusion. The petitioners contend that while their prayer for regularization of the services is awaiting consideration, the Railways had issued a tender notice dated 01.09.2022 inviting contractors to run the Staff Canteen. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.

5. I have heard Shri P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri K. Gogoi, learned CGC. The materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

6. Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the Railways in publishing the tender notice dated 01.09.2022 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary but also illegal inasmuch as, the entire rights and the expectations of the petitioners for regularization of their services have been totally extinguished. He submits that the process for the regularization was in contemplation of the authorities and to establish the same, a chart of the staff position in the canteen has been annexed to the writ petition. The same was also taken up for consideration by the authorities and in this connection, letter dated 13.12.2013 issued on behalf of the General Manager - SPO/Con. has been referred to. Along with the letter, a detail comments on the proposal was also furnished which took into account the financial implication involved. He submits that the canteen in question has been in existence since a long period of time. A reminder to the said proposal was issued on 19.09.2014. There were further communications in this regard including one dated 19.12.2014 by the Executive Director, Estt. (G) of the Ministry of Railways whereby the matter was directed to be looked into and the proposal be sent. The said communication was replied by the NF Railway vide letter dated 10.05.2015.

7. Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasized the part of the letter containing the observation of the FA & CAO/COM/NFR/MLG. The observation included the financial implication which was Rs.29,96,244/- per year wherein 9 numbers of canteen staff would be required to be absorbed through creation of additional/extra post which will have to be abolished on the retirement/death and no further appointment to be