Case: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. DYALU RAM

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 seniority3. The facts pertaining to the companion appeal are similar4. The Union of India assailed the above directions before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Writ Petitions have been dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
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. Aslam [2001 (1) SCC 720 ]. 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 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 Act10. 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 above11. 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 canteens12. 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.