Jaswant Singh And Ors. vs Uoi And Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 558 Del

                                  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

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).

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