UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus DYALU RAM

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 11-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Leave granted

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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

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