ivil Appeal No 2763 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 52
1987 of the Karnataka High Court in RSA No 171987
RB Datar and PR Ramasesh for the Appellant
Dr YS Chitale and EMSAnam for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Karnata ka High Court in Regular Second Appeal No 17 of 1987 filed in the said High Court
As we are generally in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment the appeal can be disposed of shortly
About 250 acres of wooded evergreen land in the district of Coorg was given by a grant to the ancestors of the re spondent over a hundred years ago
The said district was a Scheduled district under the 729 control of the Governor General of India
The terms of the said grant which is very old are not available but there is no dispute that the said land was granted to the ancestors of the respondent
On November 1 1899 Regulation No 1 of 1899 called the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation 1899 came into force in the district of Coorg
We propose to refer to the said Regulation as the Coorg Regulation
It applied to the entire territories administered by the Chief Commissioner of Coorg
We may at this stage take a brief note of some of the rele vant provisions of the Coorg Regulation as they stood at the time relevant for the purpose of this appeal
The Coorg Regulation was enacted in order to amend and declare the law in force in Coorg in respect of the land and land revenue
Regulation 4 of the Coorg Regulation prescribes the classes of Revenue Officers
One of these is the Chief Commissioner and one other is the Revenue Officer
Chapter VI of the Coorg Regulation deals with the records of rights and annual records
Regulation 29 in this Chapter provides that there shall be a record of rights for every estate
Clause 2 of Regulation 29 states that when it appears to the Chief Commissioner that a record of rights for an estate does not exist or that the existing record of rights for an estate requires special revision the Chief Commissioner shall by notification direct that a record of rights be made or that the record of rights be specially revised as the case may be
Regulation 30 inter alia provides that the nature and extent of the interests of the landholders tenants or assigness of land revenue in the estate shall be stated in the record of rights
Regulation 35 deals with the restric tions on variations of entries in records and generally speaking provides that entries in records of rights or annual records cannot be varied except as provided in clauses a to c thereof
Clause a of Regulation 35 the only possible relevant clause for the purposes of this appeal provides that entries can be varied in accordance with the facts admitted of found by inquiry under Regulation 34 of the Coorg Regulation
Regulation 40 provides that any person who is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry in a record of rights can file a declaratory suit to establish his right
Shri Gustav Hallet Settlement Officer Coorg made his report by way of propos als for Land Revenue Resettlement of the Province of Coorg on February 18 1910 to the Secretary to the Chief Commis sioner of Coorg
The contents of the report shows that it was made after examining the revenue settlements made earli er
Pursuant to the said report a patta was given to the ancestors of the respondent in 1912 granting the aforesaid lands and in that patta there was an endorsement reading redeemed coffee sagawali malai
The word sagawali 730 means cultivation and the word malai means hill
It is common ground that the word redeemed used in this entry would show that the price of the standing timber on the said land had been paid by the grantee by the time when the patta was made
It may be mentioned here that in the settlement in Coorg where the land was granted with the endorsement unredeemed it meant that the standing timber had not been paid for and the grantee would have to pay for the same if the grantee wanted to cut the trees and remove the timber from the land
In 19 18 it appears that pursuant to an order made by the Commissioner the said entry has been altered to unredeemed showing that the trees had not been paid for
For several years no problem arose because it appears that there was no question arose of cutting any trees but later in recent years the respondent applied for permis sion of appellant No 1 to cut and remove some of the trees from the land granted to the respondent
The said applica tion was rejected on the ground that the seigniorage payable on the value of the timber standing on the land granted had not been paid and hence before the trees could be cut and the timber removed seigniorage in respect of the trees would have to be paid
The respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Madakeri for a declaration that the said land granted to him was redeemed in tenure and hence no payment of seigniorage could be demaned in respect of the trees to be cut and removed
In that suit the respondent inter alia claimed that the alteration of the relevant entry from redeemed to unredeemed in the record of rights pertaining to the said lands made pursuant to the order of the Commissioner was void as the procedure prescribed by law had not been complied with the alteration in the entry not having been directed to be made by an authorised person
The Trial Court decreed the said suit and granted the decla ration
The appellants preferred an appeal against the said decision to the District Court but the said appeal was dismissed
The appellants then preferred a Second Appeal to the High Court of Karnataka which dismissed the same as set out earlier
We find that the question which has arisen in this appeal arose before a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in State of Mysore vs Kainthaje Thimmanna Enat and Others It is common ground that the facts in that case are in pari materia with the facts in the present case
It was held by the Division Bench that the presumption that the entries relating to the change of tenure should be taken to have been lawfully and regularly made in the course of the performance of official duties and in due compliance with 731 the procedure enjoined by law could not be drawn in that case
If the order in question for revision of the record of rights had been one that was made in exercise of the power under Regulation 29 of the Coorg Regulation which is the provision which should have been resorted to for the purpose of preparation and revision of record of rights the order should have been issued and published by the Chief Commis sioner of Coorg by notification and no such notification or publication of the same in the official gazette had been shown to the Court
The order for correcting the entry was issued by the Commissioner and not by the Chief Commissioner as enjoined by Regulation 29 of the Coorg Regulation and there was no reference on the record to any such notifica tion having been issued under Regulation 29
Moreover it was not apparent who had made the alteration altering the word redeemed to unredeemed in the Jambandi Register
It was further held that under Regulation 39 the presump tion as regards the truth of the entries arises only when the entries in the record of rights have been made in ac cordance with law for the time being in force and if the provisions of the relevant rules had been complied with
In the case before the Division Bench that presumption could not be drawn because in the absence of a notification issued by the Chief Commissioner it was not possible to predicate whether the procedure enjoined by the rules had been followed at that time of effecting the change in the entry
It was held that the suits in question were not barred by section 145 vi and viii of the Coorg Regula tion as the suits did not question the right of the Govern ment to levy seigniorage nor the liability of the plaintiffs to pay but the plea was that seigniOrage had already been levied and paid
The suits were not barred by time under Article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 as no relief was prayed for in the nature of setting aside of an order of a Government Officer but the claim made for a declaration that the impugned order altering the entry was void and non est and hence liable to be ignored
We agree with these conclu sions which were upheld on appeal by the District Court and the High Court
We would however like to give an additional ground which supports the conclusion that the said change in the entry from the word redeemed to unredeemed was not made according to law
We find from a number of judgments that identical orders changing the word redeemed to the word unredeemed in the relevant entries have been uniformally made in a large number of cases which would suggest that these changes were made pursuant to a special revision of the record of rights in respect of a number of properties and was not an individual change in a particular entry in the record of rights of a 732 particular plot of land
Under Regulation 29 of the Coorg Regulation this could have been done only pursuant to a direction or order of the Chief Commissioner but no such order or direction or a notification to that effect appears to be on the record
The result is that the said change must be held to be unauthorised in law void and of no legal effect
In view of what is set out earlier a detailed discussion regarding this contention is not called for
We may also point out that the same view regarding a similar change of an entry in the record of rights was taken by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Regular Second Appeals Nos 693 and 694 of 1977
Petitions for special leave being Special Leave Petitions Nos
38 12 13 of 1985 were preferred by the State of Karnataka against the said decision and the said petitions for special leave were dismissed summarily by this Court on 10th March 1986
In these circumstances the only thing which surprises is that the State has again chosen to reagitate the same question before this court probably only because large stakes are involved
In our opinion there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs
Y Lal Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The petitioners in this group of Writ Petitions are workers in canteens run in different railway establishments
The relief claimed in all the petitions is that the workers concerned should be treated as railway employees and should be extended all service conditions which are available to the railway employees
For convenience sake the canteens have been classified into three categories viz i Statutory canteens ii Non statutory Recognised Canteens and iii Non Statutory Non Recognised canteens
Chapter XXVIII of the Railway Establishment Manual contains the necessary instructions for running the can teens
Paragraph 2829 of Chapter XXVIII of the Manual refers to the provisions of Section 46 of the and under writes the fact that under these provisions there is a statutory obligation on the Railway Administration to set up canteens in Railway establishments which are governed by the said Act and which employ more than 250 persons
Paragraph 2831 lays down the principles governing the set ting up of the canteens which apply also to the non statuto ry canteens provided for under paragraph 2830
Paragraph 2832 inter alia states that although the Administration can employ as agent a Staff Committee or a Co operative Society for management the legal responsibility for proper manage ment rests not with the agency but solely with the Railway Administration
The Department of Personnel  Training Ministry of Personnel Government of India had issued Administrative Instructions on Departmental Canteens in Offices and Indus trial Establishments of the Government
It is made clear in these instructions that the orders issued under the said Instructions are applicable to all CanteensTiffin Rooms functioning or to be set up in any Ministry Department Establish 688 ment Office or Installation of the government of India Industrial or non industrial including those functioning under the Ministries of Defence P  T and Railways unless these three Ministries had previously decided to exempt any of the said Instructions due to specific reasons
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner workers that in view of the documents on record there is no reason why the employees in the canteens concerned should not be given the status of the railway employees with all conse quential benefits
On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the Railways that i the canteen employees are appointed by the Staff Managing Committees or Co operative Societies and not by the Railway Administration and as such there is no rela tionship of master and servant between the Railwasy Adminis tration and the Canteen employees and in no case can they be deemed as holders of civil posts either for Article 309 or for Article 311 of the Constitution ii the control exercised by the Railway administration is only to ensure that the canteens are run in conformity with certain re quirements iii the Railways have a primary objective of carrying goods and passengers and the welfare activities are ancillary to the main objective iv the canteens continue at the discretion of the Railway Administration and at any stage the Government can change the form of this welfare measure and choose to have another set up v the Railways undertake varied welfare activities and if it is decided to treat the employees engaged in the canteens as railway employees it will be difficult to resist the claim from employees of these other institutions for a similar status and vi the Railway Establishment Manual contains the necessary instructions for running the canteens and hence the Railway Administration should be deemed to have been exempted from the operation of the Administrative Instruc tions on Departmental Canteens in Offices and Industrial Establishments of the Government issued by the Department of Personnel  Training
Allowing the petitions filed by the employees of the statutory canteens and non statutory recognised canteens
and dismissing those of the non statutory non recognised canteens
this Court
HELD Statutory Canteens 1 In terms of the Rules made by the State Governments under Section 46 of the it is obligatory on the Railway Administration to provide a canteen in an establishment which employs 689 more than 250 persons
The provision of the canteen is therefore deemed by the statute as a necessary concomitant of the manufacturing activity
692C G The employees of the departmental canteenstiffin rooms were declared as holders of civil posts under the Government of India Notification dated December 11 1979 which is annexed to the Administrative Instructions on Departmental Canteens in Offices and Industrial Establish ments of the Government
That Notification states that all posts in the said canteenstiffin rooms are to be treated as posts in connection with the affairs of the Union and hence the incumbents would qualify as holders of civil posts
Accordingly service rules were framed under Article 309 as per the notification issued by the Government of India Department of Personnel  Training on December 23 1980
705H 706A B 3 The provisions contained in the Administrative Instructions show that the Government has a complete con trol over the canteens and the workers employed therein are holders of civil posts within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution
There recruitment and service conditions are governed by the rules applicable to the employees of the DepartmentOfficeEstablishment to which the canteens are attached
701E 4 Although there is nothing expressly on record to show that the railway canteens are exempted from the said Administrative Instructions but even assuming that the railway canteens are exempted by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Railway Manual the fact remains that there are as yet no notifications on the lines of December 11 1979 and December 23 1980 issued for the benefit of the employees in the railway canteens
706E F 5 It cannot be argued that there is any difference in the work performed by the employees in the canteens run in the establishments of the Ministries
If the said two noti fications are applicable to the employees in the canteens run by the other departments of the Government of India there is no reason why the same should not apply also to the employees in the canteens run by the Railways
In the cir cumstances it would be highly discriminatory not to apply the said two notifications to the employees in the Railway canteens
It would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
The employees in the Statutory canteens of the Railways will therefore have to be treated as Railway serv ants
706F H 707A 690 6 Thus the relationship of employer and employee stands created between the Railway Administration and the canteen employees from the very inception
Hence it cannot be gainsaid that for the purposes of the the employees in the statutory canteens are the employees of the Railways
707B Order dated 22101980 in Civil Appeal No 368 of 1978 Supreme Court Madras High Court Writ Appeals Nos
414 415 of 1978
referred to
7 If by virtue of all these facts the employees are entitled to the status of Railway employees they cannot be deprived of that status merely because some other employees similarly or dis similarly situated may also claim the same status
The argument to say the least can only be described as one in terroram
and as any other argument of the kind has to be disregarded
708E Non Statutory Recognised Canteen 8 These canteens are run in the establishments which employ 250 or less than 250 employees and are established with the prior approval and recognition of the Railway Board
There is hardly any difference between the statutory canteens and non statutory recognised canteens
The only material difference is that while one is obligatory under the  the other is not
However
there is no difference in the management of the two type of canteens
71 I G 712C 9 The Administration Instructions on Departmental Canteens in Government Offices and Government Industrial Establishments do not make any difference between the two so far as their applicability is concerned
Hence it cannot be seen why any distinction be made between the employees of the two types of canteens so far as their service conditions are concerned
For this very reason the two notifications of December 11 1979 and December 23 1980 should also be equally applicable to the employees of these canteens
7 12G H 10 If that is so then these employees would also be entitled to be treated as railway servants
A classification made between the employees of the two types of canteens would be unreasonable and will have no rational nexus with the purpose of the classification
Surely it cannot be argued that the employees who otherwise do the same work and work under the same conditions and under a similar manage ment have to be treated differently merely because the canteen happens to be 691 run at an establishment which employees 250 or less than 250 members of the staff
712H 713A B Non Statutory Non Recognised Canteens 11 These canteens are run at establishments which employ 100 or less than 100 employees and are established without prior approval or recognition of the Railway Board
692E The Canteens are run more or less on ad hoc basis the Railway Administration having no control of their function ing
They are not required to be managed either as per the provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual or the Admin istrative Instructions
In the circumstances the workers engaged in these canteens are not entitled to claim the status of the railway servants
713H 714A