Summary
The Supreme Court set aside reinstatement directions concerning casual cooks paid from regimental funds. Applying the settled status of unit-run canteen employees, it held that they were neither government servants nor holders of civil posts under the Union, so the Central Administrative Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Their continued engagement remained for the regimental authorities, who could take a sympathetic view of their long service.
Issues
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could entertain termination claims by the regimental-fund workers.
- Whether the cited Defence Ministry regularisation memorandum covered them.
Provisions considered
- Section 14, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the claims because these regimental-canteen employees did not have government-servant or Union civil-post status. (¶¶ 6, 8, 9)
Held
- The governing precedents established that unit-run canteen employees were not government employees. That position rendered the Tribunal’s reinstatement directions unsustainable. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The March 2012 memorandum concerned casual workers in Defence Ministry directorates or departments. It did not cover these respondents, who were not employed by such a directorate or department. (¶ 10)
- Reinstatement pursuant to the Tribunal’s decision had remained subject to the writ proceedings. Continued work did not preserve an order made without jurisdiction. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Whether to continue using the respondents’ services remained with the regimental-canteen authorities, who could consider their long service sympathetically. This was not a judicial direction to regularise or retain them. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; High Court judgment set aside and the original applications before the Tribunal dismissed. Further continuance left to the regimental-canteen authorities.