UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M. ASLAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 04-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
M. ASLAM AND ORS. 
JANUARY 4, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Ce/1/ral Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: 
Section 14-Administrative Tribunal-Jurisdiction-Unit-run 
canteens--Employees of-Whether Government employees-Held: 
Government is obliged to provide canteen facilities to troops at unit level-
Ojficers of Defence Services have all pervasive control over Unit-run 
- ~ 
canteens-Regular set of Rules is fi"amed and funding of articles is provided 
D by Canteen Stores Department-Hence, employees of Unit-run canteens are 
Government employees-Therefore, Administrative Tribunals have jurisdiction 
to entertain and decide their applications and grievances-However, that 
does not entitle them to get all service benefits available to regular 
Government employees-It depends upon the nature of duties, Rules, 
E regulations and Administralive lnstructions--Fundamental Rules do not 
apply to them unless the employer adopts !he same or frames separate 
conditions of service-Hence, the Tribunal erred in holding that these 
employees are entitled to retrial benefits and subsistence allowance-labour 
law. 
F 
The respondents were the employees of Unit-run canteens, which 
provided canteen facilities to the troops at the unit leave. The respondents 
filed an application before Central Administrative Tribunal claiming benefits 
as regular defence personnel employees or at least as civilian employees 
serving under the Ministry of Defence on the allegation that the Unit run 
canteens were part of the Canteen Stores Department (CSD); and that since 
G the CSD formed a part of the government in the Ministry of Defence there 
was no reason as to why the Unit-run canteens should not be held to be a 
+ 
part of the Ministry of Defence. The appellant contended before the Tribunal 
that the respondents could not be held to be Government servants and, 
therefore, the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the 
H application. 
62 
.... 
-~ 
--< 
,. 
' ' i 
-_\ 
' 
/ .. 
~ 
t 
U.0.1. v. M. ASLAM 
63 
· The Tribunal found that Officers of the Defence Services had all A 
pervasive control over the respondents and, therefore, held that the Tribunal 
had jurisdiction to entertain the application. The Tribunal also held that the 
respondents were entitled to retiral benefits and subsistence allowance in 
accordance with the Fundamental Rules. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : I. It is difficult to conceive as to how the employees working 
in the Unit-run canteens can be held to b~ not Government servants, when 
it has emerged that providing canteen facilities to the Defence service 
personnel is obligatory on the part of the Government and in fact these Unit-
run canteens discharge the duty of retail outlets after getting their provisions c 
from the wholesale outlets or depot of the Canteen Stores Department (CSD). 
168 G-H; 69-AI 
Parimal Chandra Raha v. l/C, 119951 Supp. 2 SCC 611, relied on. 
Union of India v. Chotelal, 119991 I sec 554, held inapplicable. 
D 
2. The Officers of the defence Services have all pervasive control over 
the Unit-run canteens as well as the employees serving therein. Regular set 
of Rules has been framed determining the service conditions of the employees 
in Unit-run canteens. The funding of articles is provided by CSD which itself 
is a part of the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, the status of the employees 
in the Unit-run canteens must be held to be that of Government employees 
and consequently the Central Administrative Tribunal Would have the 
jurisdiction to entertain applications by such employees under the provisions 
of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. (69-D-GI 
E 
3.1. Although the statues of the employees serving in Unit-run canteens F 
is that of Government servants, but that by itself ipso facto would not entitle 
them to get all the service benefits as is available to the regular Government 
servants or even their counterparts serving in the CSD canteens. It would 
necessarily depend upon the nature of duty discharged by them as well as 
on the Rules and Regulations and Administrative Instructions issued by the G 
employer. (70-C-D) 
· 
3.2. There is a set of Administrative Instructions issued by the Competent 
Authority governing the service conditions of the employees of such Unit-
run canteens. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal that the employees of 
the Unit-run canteens shou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.