UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus DYALU RAM
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 941, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Leave granted
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
DYALU RAM
(Civil Appeal No. 12004 of  2018)
DECEMBER 11, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: s.14 – Jurisdiction of
Tribunal – Respondents engaged on casual basis by Armed Forces
in 1993 and 1994 respectively – Wages payable to them were
disbursed out of Regimental Funds – Terminated from services in
the year 2003 – Respondents challenged termination order before
CAT – Tribunal quashed the order of termination and directed their
reinstatement on the ground that the respondents were working as
‘civil cooks’ continuously since the date of their initial appointment
and they could not have been treated to be privately engaged as
daily wagers and Regimental Funds are not private funds raised
out of individual contributions made by the Army officers – High
Court dismissed the writ petitions – On appeal, held: It was held in
R.R. Pillai case that employees of Unit run canteens are not engaged
by the Army authorities and do not hold a post under the Union
Government – Once it is held that employees of regimental canteens
are neither government servants nor are they engaged in connection
with a civil post under the Union, the Tribunal would not have
jurisdiction to entertain the claim under s.14 of the Act – In view of
this, the directions issued by the Tribunal were unsustainable – Office
Memorandum dated 26 March 2012 of the Ministry of Defence
was wrongly relied upon by the
respondents as the said Memorandum
was applicable to casual workers working in Directorates/
Departments of the Ministry of Defence – Respondents were not
employed by either a Directorate or Department of the Ministry of
Defence – Order of Tribunal and the order of High Court affirming
the same, are set aside – Service law – Armed Forces – Jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : Once it is held that they do not have the status of
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 941
941
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
government servants, the order passed by the Tribunal and the
order of the High Court affirming that decision are set aside.
However, the continuance of the respondent-workmen would
depend upon the authorities at the regimental canteens.  It will
be open to them to take a sympathetic view in regard to availing
their services having regard to the long years of work which have
been put in by them. [Paras 12, 13][945-F-H; 946-A]
R.R. Pillai (D) Through Lrs. v. Commanding Officer,
Headquarters, Southern Air Command (U) [2009 (13)
SCC 311] : [2009] 7  SCR 118 – relied on.
Union of India v. Gobinda Prasad Mula 2012 (13) SCC
565 ; Union of India versus M. Aslam 2001 (1) SCC
720 : [2001] 1 SCR  62 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 7  SCR 118
relied on
Para 5
(2012) 13 SCC 565
referred to
Para 5
[2001]  1  SCR  62
referred to
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12004
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2010 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 201 of 2006.
With
Civil Appeal No. 12005 of 2018.
Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Adv., R. Balasubramanian, Mrs. Sadhna
Sandhu, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ashok Agarwal, Vipin Kumar Jai, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
1. These appeals have arisen from a judgment dated 12 March
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
2010 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, affirming the decision of
the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. The Respondents were engaged in 1993 and 1994 respectively
on casual basis by the Headquarters, Army Training Command
(ARTRAC), Shimla. The wages payable to them  were disbursed out of
Regimental Funds. They were terminated from service with effect from
1 September 2003. The respondents moved the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh for challenging the order of termination.  By its
judgment dated 8 November 2005, the Tribunal held that the respondents
were working as ‘civil cooks’ continuously since the date of their initial
appointment.  In the view of the Tribunal, the respondents could not
have been treated to be privately engaged as daily wagers and Regimental
Funds are not private funds raised out of individual contributions made
by the Junior Commissioned Officers.  Consequently, the order of
termination was quashed with a direction to reinstate the respondents.
The Tribunal has denied back wages but directed that the respondents
should be treated to be in continuous service as civil cooks for the period
during which they remained out of employment.  While observing that
no specific scheme was shown to it under which regularization could be
claimed, the Tribunal has granted liberty to the respondents to represent
their cases for regularization before the appropriate authority and directed
that if there is a scheme in existence, their
applications should be
considered in accordance with their position in seniority.
3. The facts pertaining to the companion appeal are similar.
4. The Union of India assailed the above directions before the
Division Bench of the High Court.  The Writ Petitions have been dismissed.
5. Assailing the judgment of the Tribunal, Mr. Kailash Vasudev,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits
that the position of Unit run Canteens of the Indian Army is not res
integra and has been settled by a judgment of a three-Judge Bench in
R.R. Pillai (D) Through Lrs. Versus Commanding Officer,
Headquarters, Southern Air Command (U)1.  It has been submitted
that following this decision, the position in law is well settled that
employees of Unit run Canteens are not engaged by the Army authorities
and do not hold a post under the Union Government. This decision, has
1[2009 (13) SCC 311]
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DYALU RAM
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
subsequently been followed in Union of India versus Gobinda Prasad
Mula2.
6. In the above premises, it was urged that the basis on which
reinstatement was granted is contrary to the law laid down by this Court.
Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain
the Original Application, having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (“the Act”).
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Agarwal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Tribunal has
elaborately considered the facts of the present appeals and has taken
cognizance of the fact that though the respondents had worked
continuously since 1993, their services were abruptly terminated in 2003.
Learned counsel submitted that according to the finding of the Tribunal,
the services of the respondents were arbitrarily terminated on the ground
that they had declined to comply with a unilateral request to enter into a
contract contrary to the original terms of engagement.  Moreover, it was
urged that following the decision of the Tribunal, they were reinstated on
9 January 2006, subject to the outcome of the Writ Petitions. Finally, it
was urged that during the pendency of these proceedings, by an interim
order dated 14 March 2014, this Court had directed that the pendency of
the proceedings will not come in the way of the Union Government
framing a
policy for regularization of persons who are paid out of
Regimental Funds.  Learned counsel submitted that there is in fact such
a policy, which is contained in Office Memorandum  No.8(1) 2012/D
(Civ II) dated 26 March 2012 of the Government of India in the Ministry
of Defence.
8. The position of Unit run Canteens of the Indian Army is no
longer res integra following the decision of the three-Judge Bench in
R.R. Pillai (supra).  The reference to the Bench of three-Judges was
occasioned as a result of a doubt having been cast on an earlier decision
of a two-Judge Bench in Union of India versus M. Aslam3.  The Bench
of three-Judges observed that despite noticing that Unit run Canteens
are not funded from the Consolidated Fund of India, the two-Judge Bench
in M. Aslam (supra) erroneously held that these canteens are funded
2[2012 (13) SCC 565]
3[2001 (1) SCC 720]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
by the Canteen Stores Department (CSD).  In R.R. Pillai (supra), after
reviewing the position of regimental canteens, this Court held that the
employees have not been granted the status of government employees
at any stage.  Hence the reference was answered by holding that
employees of the Unit run Canteens are not government employees.
This decision has been followed in a subsequent decision in  Gobinda
Prasad Mula (supra).
9. In the present case, the judgment of the Tribunal is rendered
unsustainable by the position of law which has been elaborated in both
the above decisions. Indeed, once it is held that employees of regimental
canteens are neither government servants nor are they engaged in
connection with a civil post under the Union, the Tribunal would have
had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under Section 14 of the Act.
10. In this view of the matter, the directions which have been
issued by the Tribunal are unsustainable.  The submission which was
sought to be urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents based on the Office Memorandum dated 26 March 2012 of
the Ministry of Defence is misconceived.  The Office Memorandum
applies to casual workers who are working in Directorates/Departments
of the Ministry of Defence.  Persons in the position of the respondents
are not employed by either a Directorate or Department of the Ministry
of Defence.  Their role and position is already elaborated upon by the
two judgments which we
have cited above.
11. In pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal, the respondents
were reinstated, though subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.  As
a result of the order of reinstatement, they are continously in the service
of the regimental canteens.
12. Once we have come to the conclusion that they do not have
the status of government servants, we will necessarily to have to set
aside the order passed by the Tribunal and the order of the High Court
affirming that decision.
13. However, we need to clarify that though we are allowing
these appeals in the aforesaid terms, the continuance of the respondent-
workmen would depend upon the authorities at the regimental canteens.
It will be open to them to take a sympathetic view in regard to availing
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DYALU RAM
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
their services having regard to the long years of work which have been
put in by them.
14. The Civil Appeals are accordingly, allowed.  The judgment of
the High Court shall stand set aside.  In consequence, Original Applications
filed before the Tribunal shall stand dismissed.  There shall be no order
as to costs.
Devika Gujral
Appeals allowed.