The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees in Unit Run Canteens must be treated as Government servants, and their entitlement to service benefits depends on the nature of their duties and the employer's rules and regulations.

A.K. Sikri, J.-Before coming to this case which relates to an employee employed in Unit Run Canteen, we deem it appropriate to trace out the legal battle dealing with the status of such employees employed in Unit Run Canteens. For this purpose reference to the two judgments of the Supreme Court would suffice. First judgment is Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Aslam & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC 720. Vide that judgment three appeals were decided by the Supreme Court which arose from decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunals. The employees of the Unit Run Canteens which provide canteen facilities to the troops at the unit level had approached different Tribunals claiming benefits as regular defence personnel employees or at least as civilian employees serving under the Ministry of Defence. This claim was predicated on the averments that such Unit Run Canteens are part of the Canteen Stores Department and since the Canteen Stores Department forms a part of the Government in the Ministry of Defence there is no reason as to why the Unit Run Canteens should not be held to be a part of Ministry of Defence. The Union of India in the said OA took preliminary objection questioning the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate upon the claims of the employees on the ground that since such employees could not be held to be Government employees, consequently the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain their applications. The Jodhpur and Bombay Benches of the CAT took the view that the Unit Run Canteens are the part of defence establishment and consequently the holder of a post in the management of such canteen must be held to be connected with the Defence Service. It is against those decisions that the Union of India had filed the aforesaid appeals which came to be decided in the case of Mohd. Aslam by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 4.1.2001. After detailed analysis of the nature of these canteens, the Supreme Court concurred with the view of the Central Administrative Tribunal and held that status of the employees in these canteens must be treated to be that of Government employees and consequently the Central Administrative Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain the applications of these employees.

2. The Tribunal had directed that these employees should get the minimum of the salary presently being paid to their counterparts in the CSDI and all the benefits of other service conditions available to the regular Government servants in the CSDI. It was also directed that they should be treated as Government employees from the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal and they would also be entitled to retiral benefits. After agreeing with the Tribunal that such an employees would be treated as Government employees, the Supreme Court dealt with the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal for grant of minimum of salary paid to their counterparts in CSDI and other service conditions, etc. In this behalf the view of the Supreme Court was that even if the status of the employees serving in the Unit Run Canteens is to be that of Government servants, that by itself would not entitle them to get all the service benefits which were available to the regular Government servants or even their counter parts serving in the CSDI canteens. According to the Court this was to depend upon the nature of duty discharged by them as well as on the Rules and Regulations and Administrative Instructions issued by the employer. Therefore, the directions of the Tribunal for grant of same salary and benefits as enjoyed by their counterparts in CSDI canteens was set aside and the Ministry of Defence, Union of India was directed to determine the service conditions of the employees in the Unit Run Canteens at an early date. The Supreme Court also clarified that these employees would not automatically be governed by the Fundamental Rules as well.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court