IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 957 of 2003 Reserved on: 04.07.2008 Date of decision: 11.07.2008 Smt. Omi Thakur … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for directions to the respondents to re-engage the services of the petitioner and for quashing the order of her termination from service. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as Clerk in CSD Canteen Palchan with effect from 5.5.1995. She had completed 8 years of uninterrupted service. However, it was alleged that her services were disengaged by the respondents verbally on 28.10.2002 and in her place respondent No. 5 was engaged. She served a legal notice upon the respondents 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 on 30.10.2002 which was not replied. She challenged her termination and engagement of respondent No. 5 before the Central Administrative Tribunal who vide his order (Annexure P-7) dated 18.11.2003 held that she had failed to make out a case for regularization of her services and her termination was not set aside but the respondent department was directed to allow her to work for three days in a month during visit of Mobile Canteen to Kullu. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the action of the respondents in not regularizing her services. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the decision of the Apex Court to show that the canteen employees though are temporary employees but their services cannot be terminated arbitrarily. To substantiate his plea, he placed reliance on a decision in Dharma Nand and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 609. In that case their Lordships had referred to an earlier decision of the Apex Court Union of India Vs. M. Aslam, (2001) 1 SCC 720, in which it was held that the canteen employees are to be treated as Central Govt. employees as government servants. In the present case, it was held that the petitioners were temporary employees of canteen under Defence Ministry. They were appointed on temporary basis for a fixed term of five years. Their services were terminated after five years on ground of service no longer required. Their termination was stated to be under Rules framed for the canteen employees and Rules not treating the canteen employees as government employees. It was held that these Rules were not applicable to these employees as they 3 were entitled to be treated as government servants and their termination held to be illegal. The petitioners were held entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits. Keeping in view the above two decisions of the Apex Court, it has to be held that the petitioner was an employee of the Defence Ministry, was a government servant, though a temporary employee, but she had rendered eight years of uninterrupted service. Therefore, her services could not have been terminated by respondents No. 1 to 4 without the procedure prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, her termination by respondents No. 1 to 4 is held to be illegal. Respondents No. 1 to 4 shall provide employment to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions and she shall also be entitled to consequential benefits in regard to previous service rendered by her. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner had been out of job and had not worked during this period, she will not be entitled to back wages. Respondents No. 1 to4 are required to provide employment for her on the same terms and conditions within a period of two months from today. The petition is allowed accordingly. There is no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), July 11, 2008 Judge (BSS) 4