1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.432 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.423 OF 2009 ... Union of India ...Petitioner v/s Shri Rakesh Kannan Naidu and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.A.D.Shetty with Mr.Jaydeep Deo for the Petitioner. Mr.R.N.Sanghvi for Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 4th March,2010 P.C.:- Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. Civil Application is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). ( D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) ( A.R.JOSHI,J) 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.423 OF 2009 ... Union of India ...Petitioner v/s Shri Rakesh Kannan Naidu and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.A.D.Shetty with Mr.Jaydeep Deo for the Petitioner. Mr.R.N.Sanghvi for Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 4th March,2010 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this Petition the Petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The entire judgment 3 of the Central Administrative Tribunal based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v/s. Mohd.Aslam and ors., (2001) 1 SCC 720 and it is only relying on that judgment that the Central Administrative Tribunal has held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application. The correctness of law declared by the judgment in the case of Mohd.Aslam was referred to above was doubted and therefore the Reference was made to three Judges of the Supreme Court. That Reference has been decided by the Supreme Court by its judgment in the case of R.R.Pillai v/s. Commanding Officer H.Q.S.A.C(U) & ors., 2009 AIR SCW 5830. The Supreme Court has now held that the employees working in Unit Run Canteen(URC) are not Government servants. In view of the law declared by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, now it is clear that the 4 Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal impugned in the petition is set aside. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. 3. The Respondents, however, shall be at liberty to adopt such remedy as may be available to them under the law. ( D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) ( A.R.JOSHI,J)