PHOOL BADAN TIWARI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 386 · Decided: 03-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PHOOL BADAN TIWARI AND ORS. 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 3, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Regularisation -Handicraft Centres-To help the wives and daughters 
C of Railway employees-Run with the aid of assistance received from Sta.ff 
Benefit Fund constituted by Railway employees andfee collected from trainees-
Persons selected and appointed to work as Supervisor-On a fixed remuneration 
as also on commission to be given on bdSis of work done-Supervisors so 
appointed filing 0. As in C.A. T. claiming regularization, and consequential 
D benefits including pay-scaies equivalent to Railway employees, on the ground 
that they were appointed by the Railway authorities-Held, it is not shown 
that the appointments given to the claimants were pursuant to or under any 
of the recruitment rules-The appointment orders indicate that the appointments 
were on remuneration of a fixed sum varying from Rs. 55 lo Rs. 300 per 
month and 3% supervision charges from worker's bill-The appointment orders 
E issued on behalf of the Handicraft Centres are not by the Railway establishment 
as such-The Tribunal rightly concluded that the applicants were not Railway 
servants and as such the applications were not mainlainable before the 
Tribunal-The High Court rightly did not disturb the order passed by the 
Tribunal-On the facts of these cases, looking to the appointment orders of 
p the appellants and the nature of work and the scheme, it cannot be said that 
the appellant are Railway employees. 
M.M.R. Khan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 119901 (Supp. ) 
sec 191, held inapplicable. 
G 
Union of India and Ors. v. J. V. Subhaiah and Ors., 119961 2 SCC 258 
and All India Institute Employees' Association v. Union of India, 119901 I 
SCR 594, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 272 of2001. 
386 
-
PHOOL BADAN TIW ARI v. U.0.1. 
387 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.2000 of the Oelhi High Court A 
in C.W.P. No. 6654 of 1999. 
Anis Suhrawardy, Mrs. Shamama Anis, S. Mehdi Im11m and Vinay P. 
Tripathy for the Appellants. 
Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, S. Wasim A. Quadri, B 
Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
The appellants before us in this appeal, have called in question the 
validity and correctness of the order dated 13. I. 2000 passed by the High C 
Court in CWP No. 6654/99. The appellants in the first instance approached 
the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3099/91 and 0.A. No. 
1014/93. The Tribunal dismissed both the 0. As. Not satisfied with and 
aggrieved by the said orders of the Tribunal they approached the High Court 
by filing the writ petition afore-mentioned. The High Court did not find any D 
good reason or valid ground to take a different view than the one taken by 
the Tribunal in that view the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders 
passed by the Tribunal. 
The appellants claimed that they were employees of Northern Railways 
and were working as supervisors in the Handicraft Centres; they were selected E 
and appointed as supervisors by the railway authorities; they have been working 
as railway employees and as such they were entitled for the reliefs sought for 
in the original applications before the Tribunal. In O.A. 3099/91 the appellant 
No. I herein, namely, Phool Sadan Tiwari was aggrieved by the notice dated 
17.12.1991 by which the President ofMahila Sewing Centre. Ghaziabad had 
invited applications for filing up the post of supervisor in the Handicraft F 
Centre of Ghaziabad. It was her case that when she had already been appointed 
pursuant to the selection held on 1.7.1989, no fresh appointment could be 
made for the same post. 0. A. No. I 014/93 was filed by the appellants and 
one more person seeking the reliefs that their services be regularjsed with all 
consequential benefits, declare them as railway servants, direct the respondents G 
to pay them regular pay-scales with all allowances and to quash such policy/ 
policies which may come in the way of seeking regularisation of their services. 
The Tribunal looking to the stand taken by the respondents came to the 
conclusion that the appellants are not at all railway servants and they being 
not railway servants the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide their cases, H 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 3 S. C.R. 
A although in O.A. No. 1014/93, the Tribunal referred to the conten
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.