Unreportable
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 7643/2008 of 2008 & CM 14759/2008
% Decided on : 16.02.2009
JASWANT SINGH & ORS.
. . . Petitioners
through : Mr. Ranbir Yadav. Advocate
VERSUS
U. O. I. & ORS.
. . . Respondents
through: Mr. Mr. H. K. Gangwani with Ms. Lata
Gangwani, Advocates for the Respondent
No.1.
Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva with Mr. Preet Pal
Singh, advocates for the Respondents No. 2
to 4.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioners herein are the canteen workers i.e., Unit Run Canteen under CSD. Their claim is that they have been working there for almost 20 years or even more and therefore should be regularized in service.
2. Whether such canteen workers would be government servants or not, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors. vs. M. Aslam & Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 720. In that case, the government had taken a plea that such canteen workers are not government servants and Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain their claims. The Tribunal had decided in favour holding them to be the government employees. The Supreme Court in the W.P.(C) No. 7643/2008 Page 1 of 3 aforesaid judgment upheld this view of the Tribunal. However, while doing so, the Supreme Court also opined that even if they are declared government servants, that would not mean that they would be entitled to all the benefits admissible to the government employees or be governed by those service conditions which are applicable for the government employees. Directions were issued to government to frame rules laying down the service conditions which would govern these canteen workers. Government had thereafter framed rules for such employees.
3. The Tribunal in the instant case, however, further noted that the judgment in M. Aslam (supra) is being reconsidered as the matter was referred to the larger Bench in the case of R. P. Pillai vs. Commanding Officers and Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 8386/2003. In these circumstances, on an earlier occasion, when the Petitioners had filed OA No. 873/2004, the same was disposed of vide order dated 20.12.2004 awaiting the decision of the larger Bench. At the same time, direction was given to the Respondent not to terminate the services of the Petitioners and by granting status-quo regarding their continuance the Tribunal also observed that it shall not preclude the Respondent to frame the scheme for regularization of these employees in accordance with law.
4. The Petitioners approached the court again and filed another OA, in which same orders as passed in the first OA were repeated. However, there was a little departure from the first order in so far as status-quo regarding continuance of Petitioners' services is concerned. The Tribunal stated that in the case Petitioners' services are terminated, they shall be free to approach the court.
5. The Petitioners approached the court again by filing third OA, which was registered as OA No. 1287/2007. In this OA which is disposed of vide impugned order dated 3.6.2008, the Tribunal has again taken note of the fact that the judgment of Supreme Court in M. Aslam (supra) is pending review before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in R. P. Pillai (supra). W.P.(C) No. 7643/2008 Page 2 of 3
6. Another significant development has taken on the judicial front in so far as issue of regularization is concerned. First OA of the Petitioner was disposed of in the year 2004 and the Tribunal in the said judgment also indicated, as noted above, that respondents are free to formulate the scheme for regularization. However, thereafter, Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 has held that there cannot be automatic regularization. Petitioners, however, are taking refuge under para 44 of the said judgment and want one time exercise to be conducted by the respondents in view of the fact that the Petitioners are working for more than 10 years.
7. We are of the opinion that holistic approach can be taken by the respondents after the decision in R. P. Pillai (supra), as in that case the status of such employees in regard to any Unit Run canteens would be determined. Since the larger Bench of the Supreme Court has already heard the matter and judgment is reserved, which may be delivered in near future, we are of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in this Petition at this stage.
8. We may note that notice in this Writ Petition was issued on 24.10.2008 limited to the question as to why the petition be not remanded to the Tribunal. That purpose can be served by given liberty to the petitioners herein to seek revival of OA No. 1287/2007 after the judgment in R. P. Pillai (supra) is delivered by the Supreme Court.
9. We thus dispose of this writ petition giving aforesaid liberty to the petitioners.
(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 16, 2009 rb W.P.(C) No. 7643/2008 Page 3 of 3