Delhi High Court
Sombir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 29 April, 2014
Author: Reva Khetrapal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1463/2014
SOMBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Subhash Chand Tomar,
Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, CGSC with
Ms.Payal Raghav, Advocate for
the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
for the Respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. The Petitioner in the present writ petition is admittedly an
employee of a 'Unit Run Canteen' who seeks issuance of a writ of
certiorari quashing/setting aside of the impugned order
7846/TOS/NOIDA/CSD dated 26th April, 2012, which is a dismissal
order passed by the Respondents allegedly without giving any
opportunity to the Petitioner to defend himself.
2. At the outset a preliminary objection is raised to the
maintainability of the petition by learned counsel for the Respondents
who contends that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.3495/2005, R.R.Pillai (dead) through LRs
vs. Commanding Officer, HQ S.A.C.(U) and Ors wherein it was held
that the employees of 'Unit Run Canteens' are not Government
employees, the present petition cannot be entertained.
3. It may be noted that the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme
Court was given on a reference to a three Judge Bench doubting the
correctness of the earlier view of the Supreme Court in Union of India
vs. Mohd.Aslam, 2001(1) SCC 720. Paras 10 and 11 of the said
judgment which are relevant are reproduced hereunder:-
"10. The question whether the URC can be treated as
an instrumentality of the State does not fall for
consideration as that aspect has not been considered
by CAT or the High Court. Apparently, on that score
alone we could have dismissed the appeal. But we find
that the High Court placed reliance on Rule 24 to deny
the effect of the appointment. From Rule 4 read with
Rule 2 it is clear classification that all employees are
first on probation and they shall be treated as
temporary employees. After completion of five years
they might be declared as permanent employees. They
do not get the status of the Government employees at
any stage. In Aslam‟s case (supra) CAT‟s order was
passed in 1995. By that time 1999 Rules were not in
existence and 1984 rules were operative.
11. It is to be noted that financial assistance is given,
but interest and penal interest are charged. The URCs
can also borrow from financial institutions. The
reference is answered by holding that employees of
URCs are not government servants."
4. Subsequently a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble
Mr.Justice A.K.Sikri as his Lordship then was) in the case of Layak
Ram vs. Quarter Master General & Ors, 1999 (81) DLT 395 has
similarly held that employees of canteens in Army Headquarters
cannot file a writ petition and such employees are not employees of a
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Paras 9 and
10 of the said judgment which are relevant are reproduced hereunder:-
"9. The Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High
Court referred to above deals with the case of
employees of the same job of Army canteen and the
High Court has held that this canteen is not
instrumentality of the State on almost identical facts.
Therefore, this Judgement is squarely applicable to the
facts of this case. The cases which are decided by the
Central Administrative Tribunal as noted above again
deal with the cases of canteen workers of Army
Headquarter canteens are in all these cases, it is held
that employees of such canteens are not Central
Government servants and, therefore, the Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to deal with these cases. However, these
may not have direct bearing on the question involved
in this case namely; whether the canteen is „State‟ or
„other authority‟ within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India. It is well established law that
employees of a particular body may not be civil
servants under Article 311 of the Constitution of India
but body may still be "another authority" within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The case of
Union of India Vs. Chottey Lal A.I.R.1999 SC 396 also
deals with the jurisdiction of Central Administrative
Tribunal and it is held in the case of Dhobis
(washerman) to wash clothes of cadets in National
defence Academy are not holders of civil post and
therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to go into the conditions of service of such
Dhobis.
10. It may be mentioned that Judgment of Madras
High Court in the case of Babian and others Vs.
Lt.Col. and other 1994 Lab.I.C.245 on which petitioner
relied also helds that such canteens are not covered by
Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, I held that the
respondent canteen is not „state‟ or „other authority‟
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution."
5. Recently in the case of Rajesh Tiwari vs. Union of India &
Ors, W.P(C) No.2768/2011 decided on 10th September, 2013 it has
been reiterated that the CSD Canteen is not a State or an
instrumentality of State for a writ to be maintainable under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
6. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are inclined
to uphold the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents.
7. Resultantly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
and is accordingly dismissed.
REVA KHETRAPAL, J
PRATIBHA RANI, J
APRIL 29, 2014
k
