In Brief
This case concerns a dispute over appointment of a halt contractor (ticket seller) at a railway station. The respondent's father was appointed as a halt contractor but the contract expired in 2010 and was not renewed. The father died in 2016. The respondent was allowed to work temporarily in his father's place on humanitarian grounds. When railways conducted a fresh selection process for a new contractor, the respondent participated but was not selected. He then sought preference as an heir under railway guidelines. The Supreme Court held that since the contract had expired long before the father's death, the respondent could not claim preference as an heir, and temporary permission to work does not create contractual status. The appeal was allowed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.