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 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.