IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 27841 of 2005(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, EX-6626168-M DVR MT-GR.I, RESIDING AT KRISHNA BHAVAN, MATTAM NORTH, THATTARAMPALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA. 2. V. SADANANDAN DAS, EX-6627116-H DVR-MT.GR.I, THATTARETHU HOUSE, PELA, THATTARAMPALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA. 3. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, EX-6626817-M DVR MT.GR.I., BINDU NIVAS, EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADVS.MR.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI MR.GEORGE T. THACHETT SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT (DGST), ARMY HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI. 3. THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, ARMY HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI. 4. THE QUARTER MASTER GENERAL, ARMY HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R4 BY ADV.MR.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO.27841/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S LETTER DTD.3.10.91. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION APPEARED IN SRO NO.126/61 DTD. 7.11.53. P3:- COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DTD. 31.JULY 2001 FROM THE OFFICER COMMANDING, CHENNAI. P4:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION FROM THE OFFICER COMMANDING 756 INDEP TPT P 1 ASC(CIV GT.) P5:- COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DTD. 06 AUGUST 2001 FROM THE BRIGADIER DDST, CHENNAI P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 29.1.03 FROM THE MAJOR OFFICER COMMANDING. P6a:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 17 MAR 2003 FROM THE MAJOR OFFICER COMMANDING. P7:- COPY OF THE REMINDER NO.A/34525/M1-10 DTD. 04 APR. 2003 FROM THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL ARMY INTELLIGENCE NEW DELHI. P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 3.3.04 IN WPC. 7267/04 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6.5.05 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- WPC. No. 27841 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 30th the day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are retired persons from the ASC GT Unit of the Indian Army (Army Supply Corps General Transport). Their grievance is that though the canteen facilities are extended to several other sections of the Army, which are similarly situated, such facilities are not given to the petitioners. Thus, they approached this court with the above writ petition in which the main prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to grant canteen facilities (including liquor) to Ex-ASC-GT personnel. It is also prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P9 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. According to the petitioners, though they were described as Civilians, the duties and facilities assigned to them were that of in the ASC. On the strength of the documents produced along with the writ petition viz., Exts.P1, P2 and P3, the contention of the petitioners is that, in all respects, they are -:2:- part and parcel of the Army and therefore, the denial of the canteen facilities to the petitioners are highly arbitrary and illegal. 3. .A counter affidavit is seen filed by the respondents in which it is specifically stated that the petitioners are employed as Civilians (General Transport) Drivers in the Army Service Corps Units and they are not enrolled as soldiers in Army while in service. According to the counter affidavit, as evidenced by Ext.P2, status of the petitioners is only civilian drivers. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the personnel of Civil General Transport Companies are equivalent to the ranks of army personnel for the discipline purpose only as seen from Ext.P2 and it does not confer any status of Soldiers and therefore the petitioners cannot be treated as army personnels. It is further stated that the canteen facilities are mainly provided to the serving/retired Armed Forces personnel and their families. The petitioners’ status will not be at par even with the ex-service men. Thus it is concluded in the counter affidavit that as per the present policy of the Government in the subject regarding extension of granting facilities to retired personnel of the civilian -:3:- employees of the defence services was considered and now clarified that they are not eligible for the same and the question was considered on various levels at the higher headquarters and found that the same is not feasible. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Central Government Standing counsel. 5. The petitioners now approached this court as per this second round litigation. Initially, the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition No.7267/2004 which was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment. In the light of the direction contained in Ext.P8 judgment, the matter was considered by competent authority who passed Ext.P9 order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. It is true that the canteen facilities were extended only to certain sections coming under the army of defence. Though the petitioners have produced certain documents in support of their contention, that they are entitled to get equal treatment, none of the documents are sufficient to hold that the petitioners were worked in the Army as soldiers or in any other wing of the army. The petitioners miserably failed to point out any provision, which confer rights upon them to get -:4:- canteen facilities and the failure on the part of the authorities in extending such facilities to the petitioners. In the absence of such right, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the authorities directing them to extend the facilities as sought by the petitioners. 7. Moreover, in Ext.P9 order, it is specifically mentioned that the existing infrastructure of CSD is not feasible to extend the benefit to the petitioners or the category to which they belong. It is also made clear in Ext.P9 that the canteen stores Departments is as of now barely able to cope up with the increasing demands of Armed Forces personnel and their family members. From Ext.P9, it is further clear that certain categories of serving civilian Defence employees being paid from Defence Service Estimates and personnel of Para Military forces have also been extended this facility while serving under operational administrative control of the Army. But it is stated that none of the retired personnel of these categories have been extended CSD facilities. In Ext.P9 it is concluded that in the light of the Government policy mentioned above and after a balanced and objective assessment of the totality of the -:5:- circumstances of the case, the request contained in the representation for grant of canteen facilities cannot be extended to the petitioners. As indicated in Ext.P9, in order to provide this canteen facilities, there must be sufficient infrastructure of CSD and also there must be sufficient funds for the same. All these factors are depending upon the policy of the Government. If the policy of the Government does not permit for the same, which warrant creation of infrastructure of CSD and huge monetary expenditure, this Court cannot intervene with such matter which involve the policy of this Government and to grant the relief as sought for in the writ petition. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/- -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. -:7:- O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..