Civil Appeal No 233 of 1991 etc
From the Judgment and Order dated 2161988 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Bench in OA No 58 of 1988
VC Mahajan SN Terdal AK Srivastava CV Subba Rao SK Gambhir Dr B L Wadhera Sudarshan Menon P Parameshwaran and GD Gupta for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
To cater to the educational needs of children of persons employed in the ordnances factory at Ambazari the Central Government has sanctioned and is running a Primary School from classes I to V
In the same premises the employees 687 of the ordance factory by their own arrangement are also having a Secondary School with classes VI to X
They have appointed the respondents as teachers in the Secondary School
They are paid honorarium and not full salary
Their honorarium is paid out of fees from the children and other donations received by the school
the respondents however approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation of their services and demanding equal pay for equal work
The Tribunal has allowed their claim with certain directions to the appellants including the Union of India
The directions issued by the Tribunal are as follows i The respondents will immediately take up an assessment of the needs of the school to carry on its activities at their present level and the number of additional teachers required for this purpose ii After assessing the number of teachers needed the respondents will proceed to create a sufficient number of posts to be filled up on a regular basis iii After completing the above exercise respondents will take steps to fill up the newly created posts in accordance with recruitment rules to be framed for the purpose
the applicants who have worked as teachers in past should be first considered for the posts and only if they are found unsuitable should candidates from sources like the Employment Exchange be considered iv Once the procedure outlined above is completed all persons selected should be appointed on a regular basis and on remuneration admissible to the regular teachers of the primary school v Similar procedure should also be followed in respect of posts of peon giving Shri Tadas an opportunity of competing for regular appontment vi Till the exercise outlined above is completed which we hope will be done before the academic year 1989 90 commences the present procedure may continue and such of the applicants as are selected for appointment will be subject to the same conditions of service as before
 The Union of India and the officers of the ordnance factory have challenged the validity of these directions in Civil Appeal No 2331991
The respondents who have not been recruited as per the directions of the Tribunal have preferred Civil Appeal No 4801989
We have considered the submissions of counsel on both sides in the light of the material on record
At the outset we may point out that 688 there is no evidence that the respondents were appointed as teachers on honorarium by or on behalf of the Central Government
There is also no evidence that the respondents were initially appointed in the Primary School and latter they were shifted to the Secondary School
The fact however remains that when the respondents moved the Tribunal for relies they were only teaching in the Secondary School
It is undisputed that the Central Government has not sanctioned the Secondary School nor created any posts thereto
the Central Government has only sanctioned the Primary School and the posts connected therewith
Those posts are being occupied by regularly recruited teachers
The Tribunal however has directed the Central Government immediately to take up an assessment of the needs of the School to carry on its activities at the present level and to create a sufficient number of posts to be filled up on a regular basis
The Tribunal has further directed the Central Government to take steps to fill up the newly created posts in accordance with the recruitment rules to be framed for the purpose
These directions are indeed amazing
It has compelled the Government to sanction the Secondary School create adequate number of posts and fill up the posts after framing the recruitment rules for the purpose
There is no law requiring the Central Government to sanction the Secondary School
the Central Government has taken a decision that it will not involve itself in sanctioning or running classes beyond the Primary School level
It is a policy matter involving financial burden
No Court or the Tribunal could compel the Government to change its policy involving expenditure
The Tribunal therefore could not have could not have issued the directions as it did to compel the Central Government to assess the needs of the school and create the necessary posts without support of law
Secondly the respondents are not paid by the Central Government
They are not holding any appointment under the Central Government
There is no relationship of master and servant between the Central Government and the respondents
The respondents are employed in the Secondary School by local arrangement made by the officers of the ordnance factory
It is not proved that how the Central Government is accountable to such arrangement made by the local officers
Thirdly Section 14 of the confers no jurisdiction power and authority on the Tribunal to deal with the service matters of the employees like the respondents
689 In any view of the matter the respondents cannot claim the pay scale admissible to the Government school teachers much less regularisation of their services by the Central Government
The directions issued by the Tribunal therefore cannot be sustained
They are apparently injustified and without authority of law
In the result we allow the Civil Appeal No 2331991 and set aside the order of the Tribunal
the Civil Appeal No 4801989 is dismissed
In the circumstances of the case however we make no order as to costs
SB CA No 23391 allowed and CA No 48089 dismissed


Summary:
The position of the Gajendragad estate which had been recognised by the British Government as a saranjam and which had been declared by the Bombay High Court in 1868 to be partible was re examined in 1891 and Government passed a Resolution in 1891 that the whole of the Gajendragad estate was a saranjam continuable as hereditary in the fullest sense of the word
It is continuable to all male legitimate descendants of the holder at the time of the British con quest In 1932 by another Resolution Government formally resumed the grant and re granted it to the plaintiff who belonged to the first branch of the family of the original grantee with a direction that it should be entered in his sole name in the accounts of the Collector
The other two branches felt aggrieved and in 1936 Government passed anoth er Resolution which confirmed the Resolution of 1891 and modified the Resolution of 1932 by declaring that the portions of the 403 estate held by the branches shall be entered as de facto shares and that each share shall be continuable hereditarily as if it were a separate saranjam estate
The plaintiff instituted a suit impleading the representatives of the other two branches as defendants 1 and 2 and the Province of Bombay as the 3rd defendant alleging that the Resolution of 1936 was ultra vires and praying A for a declaration i that the defendants 1 and 2 had no right to go behind the Resolution of 1932 under which the plaintiff was recog nised as the sole saranjamdar and that the assignments held by defendants were held by them as mere potgi holders ii that the plaintiff had the sole right to all privileges appertaining to the post of saranjamdar and iii that the Government had no right to change the Resolution of 1932 and B for restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from doing any acts in contravention of the aforesaid right of the plaintiff
Held i that the suit was a suit against the Crown and also a suit relating to lands held as saranjam within the meaning of sec
4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act 1876 and the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit ii that the plaintiff could not be given even the reliefs claimed against defendants 1 and 2 alone as the rights claimed against these defendants could not be di vorced from the claim against the Government and considered separately iii in any event if the claim against the Government was to be ignored it can only be on the basis that its orders could not be challenged and if the orders stood the plaintiff could not succeed because both sides held their respective properties on the basis of those orders
Basalingappagowda vs Secretary of State 28 Born
LR 651 and Basangauda vs Secretary of State 32 Bom
LR 1370 approved
Province of Bombay vs Hormusji Maneklal 74 IA 03 distinguished
Held also that see
4 of the said Act would apply even if the only relief claimed in the suit against the Govern ment was a declaration
Dattatreya Viswanath vs Secretary of State for India ILR disapproved
Daulatrao vs Government of Bombay approved