Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8772       OF 2012 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.30324 OF 2008)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.               ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

GOBINDA PRASAD MULA                 ...RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The Union of India and its functionaries, viz. the  

Squadran Leader, Wing Commander and Station Commander are  

the appellants before us in this appeal by special leave.  

The  appellants  call  in  question  the  correctness  or  

otherwise of the judgment and order passed by the High  

Court  of  Calcutta  in  WPCT  No.  788  of  2004,  dated  

22.07.2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High  

Court  has  confirmed  the  order  passed  by  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (for brevity “the  

Tribunal”) in Original Application No. 789 of 2002, dated  

07.07.2004.  

3. It is essential to briefly outlay the facts that led  

to  this  appeal  before  us.  The  respondent  herein  was  

employed as Manager in a Unit Run Canteen (for brevity  

“the URC”) of Air Force Station in Kumbhigram, Assam. On

Page 2

2

06.03.2000, he was served with a notice by the appellants  

to show-cause as to why he should not be terminated from  

service for certain acts and commissions said to have been  

committed by him during the course of his employment at  

the URC.  The said show-cause notice was replied by the  

Respondent-herein  on  09.03.2000,  denying  the  charges  

alleged  against  him.  Thereafter,  the  appellants  have  

passed an order terminating the service of the Respondent  

with effect from 31.08.2000.

4. Being  aggrieved,  the  respondent  had  filed  a  

representation  on  24.05.2002  before  the  Competent  

Authority and thus Conciliation Proceedings were drawn up.  

However,  the  Competent  Authority  reached  the  conclusion  

that the Respondent is not a workman under the provisions  

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, did  

not adjudicate upon the claim of the applicant.  

5. The  Respondent,  after  failure  of  the  aforesaid  

Conciliation Proceedings, had called in question the order  

of  his  termination,  dated  31.08.2000,  passed  by  the  

appellants by filing Original Application No. 789 of 2002  

before  the  Tribunal.  After  service  of  notice,  the  

Appellants-herein had filed their detailed objections and  

resisted  the  claim  of  the  Respondent.  By  way  of  

preliminary objection, they had raised contentions, inter  

alia, that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain  

the application on the grounds that neither the Respondent  

is a resident of Calcutta nor does the cause of action  

arose in Calcutta and also that the Respondent is neither

Page 3

3

a public servant nor does he hold a civil post within the  

meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, 1950.  

Various other grounds were raised which, in our opinion,  

need not be noticed by us.

6. The  Tribunal,  while  deciding  the  specific  issue  in  

respect of the Respondent of not being a public servant,  

has relied upon a decision of this Court in Union of India  

v. M. Aslam, (2001) 1 SCC 720 and has concluded that an  

employee of a URC holds a civil post and, therefore, the  

application  of  the  Respondent  before  the  Tribunal  is  

maintainable. In the words of the Tribunal:  

“As regards the other objection that the applicant  is not a public servant, this Bench of the Tribunal  does  not  have  any  jurisdiction  over  the  service  matters  otherwise  also.   This  objection  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  cannot  be  sustained  since  the  issue  relating  to  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  this  Bench  of  the  Tribunal  in  the  case  of  employees  of  URCs  has  already been adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court  in the case of the Mod. Aslam Khan (Supra) wherein  their  lordships  have  categorically  held  that  CAT  would have jurisdiction in respect of the service  matter of canteen employees and also those employees  of URC.  Thus this objection of the respondents also  has no  locus standi and the same stands repelled.  We find that the other preliminary objections are  also  just  an  objection  and  ancillary  to  the  objection which we have already dealt with.  Thus  the same would not obstruct us to proceed further in  the matter on merits.”  

Accordingly, it had answered the aforesaid issue in  favour of the Respondent. Thereafter, on merits of  the  matter,  it  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the

Page 4

4

appellants, without holding an inquiry, could not  have terminated the services of the Respondent and  therefore, quashed the order of termination, dated  31.08.2000.

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal,  

the  Appellants  had  filed  Writ  Petition  before  the  High  

Court of Calcutta in WPCT No. 788 of 2004. The High Court  

has decided the writ petition on merits and rejected the  

Writ  Petition  by  confirming  the  orders  passed  by  the  

Tribunal.  

8. The  appellants  are  now  calling  in  question  the  

correctness  or  otherwise  of  the  impugned  judgment  and  

order passed by the High Court.   

9. Shri  Rakesh  Khanna,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General appearing for the appellants, submits that as the  

Respondent-herein does not hold a civil post, he could not  

have  approached  the  Tribunal  for  redressal  of  his  

grievances, if any.  In support of his submissions, the  

learned Addl. Solicitor General relies on the observations  

made by a three Judge Bench of this Court in R. R. Pillai  

(Dead)  through  LRs.  v.  Commanding  Officer,  Headquarters  

Southern  Air  Command  (U)  and  Others,(2009)  13  SCC  311,  

wherein  this  Court  has  specifically  over-ruled  the  

observations made in Aslam's case (supra) and held that  

the employees of URCs run by Army, Navy and Air Force are  

not government servants.  

10. Shri S.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for

Page 5

5

the  Respondent  submits  that  the  Tribunal  and  the  High  

Court have not committed any error which would call for an  

interference of this Court. Further, he submits that the  

Tribunal  was  justified  in  entertaining  the  application  

filed by the Respondent and answering the claim of the  

Respondent affirmatively.

11. The bone of contention so canvassed before us relates  

to the question of Respondent holding a civil post and  

thus being subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.  

However, from the discussions in the impugned judgment and  

order of the High Court no indication could be gathered as  

to whether the Appellants-herein had canvassed the issue  

pertaining  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal  to  

entertain the application filed by an employee working in  

a  URC  or  not.  However,  we  are  informed,  by  learned  

Additional  Solicitor  General,  of  such  issue  being  

canvassed before the High Court but not considered.  Be  

that as it may.

12. We have perused the observations made by the Tribunal  

insofar as the answer to the preliminary objection raised  

by  the  Appellants,  i.e.,  to  hold  that  the  Respondent-

herein holds a civil post relying upon the observations  

made  in  Aslam's  case  (supra),  is  concerned.  The  said  

decision has now been over-ruled by the decision of three  

Judge Bench of this Court in R.R. Pillai's case (supra),  

wherein  this  Court  has  specifically  observed  that  an

Page 6

6

employee working in a URC canteen is not the holder of a  

civil post.  The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

“12. The factors highlighted to distinguish Chotelal  case ((1999) 1 SCC 554) in our considered opinion  are without any material.  There was no scope for  making any distinction factually between Aslam case  and  Chotelal case.  In our view, therefore,  Aslam  case was not correctly decided.

*** 15. It is to be noted that financial assistance is  given, but interest and penal interest are charged.  URCs can also borrow from financial institutions.  The reference is answered by holding that employees  of URCs are not government servants.”

13. In view of the observations made in the above-said  

decision, in our view, the Tribunal was not justified in  

entertaining the application filed by the Respondent and  

should not have  answered the prayer in the application in  

favour of the Respondent.  

14. Resultantly, while allowing this appeal, we set aside  

the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court in  

Original Application No.789 of 2008, dated 07.07.2004 and  

Writ  Petition  No.788  of  2004,  dated  22.07.2008,  

respectively.   We  further  reserve  liberty  to  the  

respondent, if he so desires, to approach the appropriate  

forum  for redressal of all his grievances. No order as to

Page 7

7

costs.

Ordered accordingly.   

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 05, 2012.