REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                         Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

RAM SINGH THAKUR & ORS.                       Respondent(s) WITH  

Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

O  R  D  E  R

Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2007

Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

This  Appeal  has  been  filed  against  the  impugned  

judgments dated 15.09.2003 and dated 21.11.2003 passed by  

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment  

dated 15.09.2003 as well as in the order of the Central  

Administrative Tribunal dated 30.05.2001 and hence we are  

repeating the same here.

The  respondents  were  employees  of  a  co-operative  

society of Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society  

Ltd.  By  its  order  dated  30.05.2001,  the  Central  

Administrative  Tribunal  (for  short  'the  Tribunal)  has  

directed  the  Chairman,  Railway  Board  to   formulate  a  

suitable  scheme  for  induction  of    the respondents and  

:1:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007 & Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

similarly placed employees of other co-operative societies  

in regular Group 'D' posts and alternatively also as Casual  

Group 'D' employees in the railways.  This direction has  

been upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgments.

In our opinion, the order of the Tribunal as well as  

the  impugned  judgments  of  the  High  Court  were  totally  

unwarranted  and  illegal.   There  is  broad  separation  of  

power in the Indian Constitution.  As held by this Court in  

Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr   Vs.  Chander  

Hass & Anr., (2008) 1 SCC 683, it is not proper for the  

Judiciary to encroach into the domain of the Legislature or  

the Executive.  The framing of a scheme such as the one  

done by the Tribunal and approved by the High Court was a  

purely executive function, and could not validly be done by  

the judiciary.   

Moreover, in view of the judgment of this Court in  

Union of India [Railway Board] & Ors.  Vs.  J.V. Subhaiah &  

Ors.  (1996)  2 SCC 258, the employees of a co-operative  

society are not employees of the Government.   

In our opinion, the direction to frame a scheme for  

appointment can only be given by the Executive (and that  

too according to Article 16 and other provisions of the  

Constitution).

:2:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007 & Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

For the reasons stated above, the Appeal stands allowed  

and the impugned judgments of the High Court as well as the  

order of the Tribunal are set aside.  No costs.

Civil Appeal No. 1197 of 2007

Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

This  Appeal  has  been  filed  against  the  impugned  

judgment  dated  23.08.2005  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 8536 of 2003.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment  

and in the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal  

dated 28.03.2002 and hence we are not repeating the same  

here.

It appears that the respondents were working in a Mess  

run by the trainee officers  in the Railway Staff College.  

That Mess was not run by the railways but was run by the  

trainee officers themselves so that they could get proper  

meals. It is evident that the respondents were not railway  

employees,  but  a  direction  has  been  given  that  they  be  

regularised in railway service.

In our opinion, a direction regarding regularisation in  

service is a purely executive function and such a direction  

cannot validly be given by the judiciary.     

:3:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007 & Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

Consequently, this Appeal stands allowed. The impugned  

judgment as well as the judgment of the Tribunal are set  

aside.  No costs.

..........................J.   (MARKANDEY KATJU)

NEW DELHI; ..........................J. JULY 14, 2011 (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

:4: