Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Budh Ram - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7133 of 2003 & CM Appl. 12405 of 2003
Decided On : 22-09-2022
None, for the Petitioner; Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Rahul Mourya, Advocate. with Major Partho Katyayan., for the Respondents; Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate., for the Respondents No. 4 & 5
Contractual employees cannot claim benefits at par with government employees without specific provisions or policies granting such entitlement.
Headnote:
Retirement - Military Services - Central Administrative Tribunal - Age of Retirement - Union of India v. Mohd. Aslam (2001) 1 SCC 720, R. R Pillai Through LRs v. Commanding Officer, Headquarters Southern Air Command (U) & Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 311 - The court discussed the applicability of the age of retirement for employees of unit run canteens and the distinction between government employees and contractual employees.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a retired military serviceman, sought to continue his employment in a military-run canteen until the age of 60, citing a policy decision to increase the retirement age and claiming parity with government employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner's contractual employment in the canteen did not entitle him to the same benefits as government employees, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioner, as a contractual employee in a military-run canteen, was entitled to continue his employment until the age of 60, claiming parity with government employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that contractual employees cannot claim benefits at par with government employees, especially in the absence of specific provisions or policies granting such entitlement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a very old matter. Despite service. There is no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner.
2. Mr. Anil Soni, learned CGSC, along with Mr. Sunil Mund, learned Counsel, appear in the matter on behalf of Respondents.
3. The present writ petition arises out of the Judgment dated 05.04.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.335/2002.
4. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner joined the military services as a Gunner on 21.05.1963, and after completing 28 years of service, he superannuated on 31.05.1991.
5. The Petitioner, thereafter, joined the services in the military-run canteen vide letter dated 14.05.1993. On 29.05.1993, he was appointed as Salesman/Accountant for a period of two years.
6. The Petitioner was appointed for a period of two years from the date of joining, i.e. with effect from 14.05.1993. The service of the Petitioner was extended by another year and the extension continued from time to time upto 14.01.2002.
7. As the representation of the Petitioner to continue upto the age of 60 years was rejected by the Department, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') stating that he is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. He took a plea that Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide Office Memorandum dated 13.05.1998 had taken a policy decision to increase the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years, and, in those circumstances, he should also be entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years.
8. The Petitioner made a statement before the Tribunal that in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Aslam,(2001) 1 SCC 720 the Apex Court has held that the employees serving in unit run canteens are to be considered as government employees.
9. The Tribunal dismissed the original application and aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner approached this Court claiming continuance upto the age of 60 years. The Petitioner's contention is that the employees of the unit run canteens have to be treated to be at par with government employees.
10. At this stage, Mr. Anil Soni, learned CGSC, has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in R. R Pillai Through LRs v. Commanding Officer, Headquarters Southern Air Command (U) & Ors.,(2009) 13 SCC 311 wherein it has been held that the employees of the unit run canteens are not government employees/employees of Ministry of Defence. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
'8. Learned counsel for the Union on the other hand submitted that Aslam case [(2001) 1 SCC 720 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 302] proceeded on erroneous factual basis. It proceeded on the basis as if the canteen or the establishment in question was funded by CSD. The issue is not whether it is an instrumentality of the State. Issue is whether the employees concerned are government employees. It is submitted that Union of India v. Chotelal [(1999) 1 SCC 554 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 332] clearly applies to the facts of the case. It is submitted that unit-run canteen is amenable to shops and commercial establishments statutes because the appointment cannot be made dehors the Rules. There is no prescribed qualification or age-limit. Similarly, there is no grade or cadre. Therefore, it cannot be said that the employees concerned are holders of civil posts.
9. In Aslam case [(2001) 1 SCC 720 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 302] a Bench of this Court proceeded on incorrect factual premises inasmuch as after noticing that URCs are not funded from the Consolidated Fund of India, it went wrong in concluding that URCs are funded by CSD as well as the articles were supplied by CSD. Unfortunately, it did not notice that no such funding is made by CSD. Further, only refundable loans can be granted by CSD to URCs at the rate of interest laid down by it from time to time upon the application of URCs seeking financial assistance. URCs can also take from other non-public funds. 10. Further observation in Aslam case [(2001) 1 SCC 7
