Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar vs Quartermaster General Branch Canteen ... on 20 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1 W.A. No.2231/2024, 2232/2024, 2739/2024, 2741/2024, 2740/2024
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON 20th MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL NO.2231/2024
Sanjay Sinduriya
Vs.
Quartermastaer General Branch Canteen Service Army
&
WRIT APPEAL NO.2232/2024
Jawahar Singh Yadav
Vs.
Quartermastaer General Branch Canteen Service Army
&
WRIT APPEAL NO.2739/2024
Rajendra Kumar Yadav
Vs.
Quartermastaer General Branch Canteen Service Army
&
WRIT APPEAL NO.2741/2024
Gurudayal Singh
Vs.
Quartermastaer General Branch Canteen Service Army
&
WRIT APPEAL NO.2740/2024
Rajesh Kumar Batham
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 4/8/2025
6:44:44 PM
2 W.A. No.2231/2024, 2232/2024, 2739/2024, 2741/2024, 2740/2024
Vs.
Quartermastaer General Branch Canteen Service Army
Shri Devesh Sharma - Advocate for all the appellants.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newskar - Deputy Solicitor General for the
respondents.
1. Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, all three appeals are
being heard analogously and decided by a common judgment. For factual
clarity, facts of Writ Appeal No.2231/2024 are taken into consideration.
2. The instant writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uccha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is
filed against the judgment dated 10th May, 2024 passed in Writ Petition
No.3617/2024 by the learned Single Bench whereby Writ Petition
preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case in the pleadings are that petitioner
(hereinafter referred as "appellant") was appointed as Salesman cum Safai
/ Labour on 01/04/2004 with the respondents/ Unit Run Canteen, Morar
and since then he continuously working there with clean image without
any complaint. Appellant worked for almost 19 years but vide order
dated 15th January, 2024, he was terminated/ dis-continued from the
services without giving any notice or without giving any opportunity of
hearing.
4. Terms and conditions of the services of the appellant and other
employees of Unit Run Canteen as alleged are governed by the
Guidelines Regulating the Terms and Conditions of Regular Civilian
Employees of Unit Run Canteen (URC) paid out of Non-Public Fund".
5. The Board Officers recommended the revised pay scale of Combat
3 W.A. No.2231/2024, 2232/2024, 2739/2024, 2741/2024, 2740/2024
Canteen Civilian Employees. The said Board recommended new pay
scale of the civilian employees as per the direction given in Army Head
Quarter vide letter No.96029 Q1DDGCS dated 11 th August, 2014 Rules
regulating the Terms and Conditions of Service of Civilian Employees of
Unit Run Canteen paid out of Non Public Fund. The recommendation of
the said Board was duly approved by the respondents. Thereafter, as
submitted respondents issued order dated 18/02/2016 by which revised
pay scale and annual increment was approved to the appellant and other
employees of URCs in 2016-17 and arrears of salary were also paid to the
employees of the URCs including appellant. Abruptly, respondents
stopped to give increment to the appellant and other employees of URCs
from 2018.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant and other employees of
URCs preferred representations before the respondents, which
respondents refused to duly receive. Thereafter, respondents asked
appellant and other employees of URCs to sign a agreement inter alia
stating that they will be serving for a period of 11 months in a year that
too as a casual worker. When appellant and other employees refused to
sign the said agreement, then as a result therefore, services of the
appellant and other employees of URCs were terminated/ discontinued.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that as per
the classification provided in the new Guidelines of 11 th August, 2014,
appellant was a regular employee and his services can only be terminated
after following the due process of law, which has not been done in the
present case. It is further submitted that the Writ Court dismissed the writ
4 W.A. No.2231/2024, 2232/2024, 2739/2024, 2741/2024, 2740/2024
petition of the appellant in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of R.R. Pillai (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Commanding
Officer Head Quarter S.A.C. (U) & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 311 and
Union of India Vs. Dayalu Ram, (2019) 1 Scale 352, but the same are
not applicable in the case of appellant as the same moves in different
factual realms. Therefore, the Writ Court committed error while passing
the impugned order. He prays for setting aside the impugned order.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
prayer by submitting that the Writ Court after appreciating the record and
factual aspects of the case and applying due principles of law, passed the
impugned order, which needs no interference, therefore, he prays for
dismissal of the writ appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. First and foremost question to be addressed in the instant case is the
status of the employees of Unit Run Canteens (URCs) in the Army.
Appellants in all the appeals are the employees of URCs. Incidentally,
appointment letter have not been filed and this has been recorded by the
learned Writ Court also. What is the status of URCs is no longer res-
integra. Earlier the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs.
Mohd. Aslam, 2001(1) SCC 720 held that employees of URCs are
government servant ,However, doubting the correctness of the view, a
Three Judges Bench decided the issue in the matter of R.R. Pillai
(supra). Relevant discussion of the same is reproduced as under:-
9. In the case of Aslam's case (supra) a Bench of this
court proceeded on incorrect factual premises inasmuch
as after noticing that the URCs are not funded from the
5 W.A. No.2231/2024, 2232/2024, 2739/2024, 2741/2024, 2740/2024
Consolidated Fund of India, it went wrong in concluding
that the URCs are funded by CSD as well as the articles
were supplied by the CSD. Unfortunately, it did not notice
that no such funding is made by the CSD. Further, only
refundable loans can be granted by the CSD to URCs at
the rate of interest laid down by it from time to time upon
the application of URCs seeking financial assistance.
URCs can also take from other Non- Public Funds.
10. Further observation regarding supply is also not
correct. URCs, in fact, purchase articles from CSD
depots and it is not an automatic supply and relation
between URCs and CSDs is that of buyer and seller and
not of principal and the agent. This Court further went
wrong in holding that URCs are parts of CSDs when it
has been clearly stated that URCs are purely private
ventures and their employees are by no stretch of
imagination employees of the Government or CSD.
11. Additionally, in Aslam's case (supra) reference was
made to Parimal Chandra Raha and Ors. V. LIC The
Bench hearing the matter unfortunately did not notice
that there was no statutory obligation on the part of the
Central Government to provide canteen services to its
employees. The profits generated from the URCs are not
credited to the Consolidated Funds, but are distributed to
the Non Public Funds which are used by the units for the
welfare of the troops. As per para 1454 of the Regulations
for the Air Force, 1964 the losses incurred by the non
public funds are not to be borne by the State.
12. The factors highlighted to distinguish Chotelal's case
in our considered opinion are without any material.There
was no scope for making any distinction factually
between Aslam's case and Chotelelal's case. In our view,
therefore, Aslam's case was not correctly decided.
13. 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
6 W.A. No.2231/2024, 2232/2024, 2739/2024, 2741/2024, 2740/2024
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.
14. 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
CAT's order was passed in 1995. By that time 1999
Rules were not in existence and 1984 rules were
operative.
15. 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.
16. The High Court has come to an abrupt conclusion
about validity of Rule 24, distinguishing the decision of
this Court in DTC v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress. The
Present appellant had questioned validity of Rule 24.
High Court should have considered that challenge in the
proper perspective. But it is not necessary to examine
that question as the original employee R.R. Pillai has
already expired. But, in the peculiar facts of the case we
direct that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs be paid to his legal
representatives within a period of three months in full
and final settlement of all his claims.
11. Later on, in the case of Dayalu Ram (supra), the Apex Court
affirmed the view taken in the case of R.R. Pillai (supra), which is
reproduced as under :-.
9. The position of Unit run Canteens of the Indian Army
is no longer res integra following the decision of the
three Judge Bench in R.R. Pillai. The reference to the
7 W.A. No.2231/2024, 2232/2024, 2739/2024, 2741/2024, 2740/2024
Bench of three Judges was occasioned as a result of a
doubt having been cast on an earlier decision of a two-
Judge Bench in Union of India versus M. Aslam. The
Bench of three Judges observed that despite noticing
that Unit run Canteens are not funded from the
Consolidated Fund of India, the two Judge Bench in M.
Aslam erroneously held that these canteens are funded
by the Canteen Stores Department (CSD). In R.R.
Pillai , after reviewing the position of regimental
canteens, this Court held that the employees have not
been granted the status of government employees at any
stage. Hence the reference was answered by holding
that employees of the Unit run Canteens are not
government employees. This decision has been followed
in a subsequent decision in Gobinda Prasad Mula.
12. Therefore, it clear that since the Apex Court specifically dealt with
the issue regarding status of the employees of URCs, then the Judgments
of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian
Institute Of Chemical Biology & Others, (2002) 12 SCC 331 is not
required to be dealt upon in detail as the same would be repeatation.
These judgments are also discussed the definition and scope of 'State'
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
13. In absence of any appointment letter, any argument to persuade this
Court to tread on different path does not exist. Appellant failed to
establish that URCs financially, fundamentally, administratively comes
under control of the Government. Merely because certain guidelines are
issued to regulate the URCs' day to day functions, will not give the unit
the status as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
14. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, looking to the
8 W.A. No.2231/2024, 2232/2024, 2739/2024, 2741/2024, 2740/2024
settled law by the Apex Court as well as this court from time to time in
this regard, the learned Writ Court rightly passed the impugned order and
dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant on the ground of
maintainability.
15. The impugned order dated 10th May, 2024 passed in Writ Petition
No. 3617/2024 deserves to the affirmed because no illegality or
arbitrariness has been caused.
16. Appellants are always at liberty to pursue other remedies as
available to them in accordance with law.
17. Resultantly ,All the appeals stand dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
vc
