REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant (s)

VERSUS

RAM SINGH THAKUR & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

O R D E R

Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2007

Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned

judgments dated 15.09.2003 and dated 21.11.2003 passed by

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment

dated 15.09.2003 as well as in the order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal dated 30.05.2001 and hence we are

repeating the same here.

The respondents were employees of a co-operative

society of Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society

Ltd. By its order dated 30.05.2001, the Central

Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) has

directed the Chairman, Railway Board to formulate a

suitable scheme for induction of the respondents and

:1:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007 & Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

similarly placed employees of other co-operative societies

in regular Group 'D' posts and alternatively also as Casual

Group 'D' employees in the railways. This direction has

been upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgments.

In our opinion, the order of the Tribunal as well as

the impugned judgments of the High Court were totally

unwarranted and illegal. There is broad separation of

power in the Indian Constitution. As held by this Court in

Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr Vs. Chander

Hass & Anr., (2008) 1 SCC 683, it is not proper for the

Judiciary to encroach into the domain of the Legislature or

the Executive. The framing of a scheme such as the one

done by the Tribunal and approved by the High Court was a

purely executive function, and could not validly be done by

the judiciary.

Moreover, in view of the judgment of this Court in

Union of India [Railway Board] & Ors. Vs. J.V. Subhaiah &

Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 258, the employees of a co-operative

society are not employees of the Government.

In our opinion, the direction to frame a scheme for

appointment can only be given by the Executive (and that

too according to Article 16 and other provisions of the

Constitution).

:2:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007 & Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

For the reasons stated above, the Appeal stands allowed

and the impugned judgments of the High Court as well as the

order of the Tribunal are set aside. No costs.

Civil Appeal No. 1197 of 2007

Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned

judgment dated 23.08.2005 passed by the High Court of

Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 8536 of 2003.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment

and in the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal

dated 28.03.2002 and hence we are not repeating the same

here.

It appears that the respondents were working in a Mess

run by the trainee officers in the Railway Staff College.

That Mess was not run by the railways but was run by the

trainee officers themselves so that they could get proper

meals. It is evident that the respondents were not railway

employees, but a direction has been given that they be

regularised in railway service.

In our opinion, a direction regarding regularisation in

service is a purely executive function and such a direction

cannot validly be given by the judiciary.

:3:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007 & Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

Consequently, this Appeal stands allowed. The impugned

judgment as well as the judgment of the Tribunal are set

aside. No costs.

..........................J.

(MARKANDEY KATJU)

NEW DELHI;

..........................J.

JULY 14, 2011

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

:4: