Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Budh Ram - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7133 of 2003 & CM Appl. 12405 of 2003
Decided On : 22-09-2022
Employees of unit run canteens are not classified as government employees but as contractual employees lacking rights to extensions in service beyond contractual terms.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Central Administrative Tribunal - Treatment of employees of unit run canteens - The judgment reiterates that employees of unit run canteens are not government employees but are contractual workers governed by the terms of their employment. Relevant case law cited includes Union of India v. Mohd. Aslam, (2001) 1 SCC 720 and R.R. Pillai Through LRs v. Commanding Officer, Headquarters Southern Air Command (U) & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 311. (Paras 8-14)
(B) Contract Employment - Rights of Contractual Employees - Court finds that the petitioner, as a contractual employee and pensioner, cannot claim rights equivalent to government employees, thus denying the request for extension of service. (Paras 11-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner joined military services in 1963, superannuated in 1991, and later joined a military canteen on a contractual basis, which was repeatedly renewed. After petitioning for extended service till 60 years, he faced rejection.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision dismissing the petition, emphasizing that contractual employment does not afford the same rights as regular government employment.
Issues: Whether employees of unit run canteens can be classified as government employees and the legitimacy of the petitioner's claim for extension of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the petitioner, as a contractual employee, was not entitled to the same privileges as government employees, describing the factual basis in prior rulings regarding unit run canteens and emphasizing contractual obligations.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the petitioner's service history. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner's claim for retirement at 60. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments regarding employee status of canteen workers. (Para 9) |
| 4. judicial analysis of precedents and applicability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's conclusion on contractual employee rights. (Para 13 , 14) |
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 th
