Union of India & Ors Vs. Kamla Devi
 Insc 362 (22
Pal & Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan
O R D
E R (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24145 of 2004)
respondent's husband was a canteen employee. He was appointed on Ist December
1979. On 12.7.1990 he retired on medical grounds. In the meanwhile, the
Government had issued a Notification on 11.12.1979 by which with effect from
1.10.1979 the Government would treat all posts in canteen and tiffin rooms run
departmentally by the Government of India as civil posts. It was made clear by
Notification dated 11.12.1979 that all present and future incumbents of the
posts would qualify as holders of Civil posts under the Central Government and
that necessary rules governing their conditions of service would be framed
under proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India to have retrospective
effect from first day of October, 1979.
workers of the canteens then filed proceedings under Art.32 before this Court
for enforcement of their rights claiming inter alia parity with Railway
employees. The workers of three classes of canteens were the claimants viz.
Non- statutory recognized canteens and
statutory non-recognized canteens.
The issue as to whether all the canteen employees should be treated as Railway
employees and whether all service conditions be extended to them which are
available to Railway employees was decided by this Court in M.M.R.Khan &
Others vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 191. This
Court held that the relationship of employer and employee has been created
between the Railway Administration and the canteen employees from the very
inception and that it would not be gainsaid that for the purposes of the
Factories Act, the employees in the statutory canteen were the employees of the
Railway. It was noted that the Railway Board had already treated the employees
of all statutory and eleven daily basis non-statutory recognised canteens as
Railway employees with effect from October 27, 1980. However, the Court went on to say
that the employees of the other non- statutory recognised canteens would,
however, be treated as Railway employees with effect from Ist April 1990, and
that they would be extended all the benefits as such Railway employees with
effect from that date, according to the service conditions prescribed for them
under the relevant rules and orders.
claim of the non-statutory non-recognized canteen workers was negatived.
husband of the respondent together with other employees of non-statutory
recognized canteens filed writ petitions in which similar reliefs as -3- were
considered and granted in M.M.R. Khan's case were prayed for. The Court
disposed of the writ petition by the following order on 11.10.1991:
are of the view that the facts before us in these cases squarely attract the
decision in the reported case to be applied to them. In that view of the
matter, we allow the Writ Petitions for the reasons indicated in the said Judgement
and direct the benefits to be given to the Petitioners in the following way.
interim order dated 26.9.1983 certain reliefs had been granted. In respect of
the reliefs already granted this order shall be deemed to be operative from
that date. In case any further benefits are admissible, those will be
admissible from 1.10.1991.
the purpose of calculation of pension service from the date of the
interlocutory order shall be counted.
interim order dated 22.9.1983 referred to in the body of the quotation above, a
direction was given given to the effect that pending hearing and disposal of
the writ petitions, including the petition wherein the respondent's husband was
a party, all employees of non-statutory recognized canteens would be paid at
the same rate and on the same basis on which employees of statutory canteens
were being paid.
application of the Union of India for clarification of the order dated
11.10.1991, quoted earlier, on 10th August 1993
this Court passed the following order:
"The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India
states that the pension will be given to all those who retired after 1.10.1991.
However, for the purpose calculating the pension their services on and from
26.9.83 be taken into consideration. In case of those whose service falls short
of the qualifying period, the service rendered them prior to 26.9.83 will be
taken into consideration to extent of the short fall. On these clarifications
we find that there is nothing further to be done in the matter. It is disposed
the respondent's husband had retired before 11.10.1991. Indeed, he had died on
28.3.1991. In 1994, the Federation of All India Central Government Canteens
Employees Association filed another writ petition in which it appears that the
petitioners had asked for a change of the cut off date as fixed by the order
dated 10.8.1993. The writ petition was dismissed but this Court said that the
dismissal would not preclude the Federation from approaching the High Court or
the Central Administrative Tribunal whichever had the jurisdiction. In other
words, the order dated 10th
August 1993 was not
a cue from this order, the canteen workers sought to reopen the issue of the
cut off date before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondent's
husband filed an independent application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The CAT directed the Union of India to -5- grant the benefits of the
entire period of service prior to the applicants having been declared as
Government Servants for counting towards pensionary benefits. The respondent's
husband sought to contend that the benefits of the Tribunal's order should also
be made available in respect of persons when they retired prior to the cut off
date i.e. prior to 11.10.1991. This was allowed by the Tribunal. The Union of
India preferred a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed.
this order the appellants have approached this Court.
of the view that the issue as far as cut-off date of classification of non-
statutory canteen employees is concerned, it must be taken to have been
concluded by the order dated 10.8.1993 passed by this Court.
not open to the respondent to seek variation of the same either before the CAT
or the High Court. The order dated 10th August 1993 has attained finality and there can
be no dispute as to the language of the order. The respondent could not reopen
the issue. In this view of the matter, the decisions of the courts below are
set aside and the appeal is allowed. We are making it clear that this decision
will not affect the proceedings said to be pending before the CAT on the
application of the Federation dated 3.12.1999 in any manner.