Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14402 of 2001 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Saxena And Others Respondent :- C.A.T. Addl.Bench Allahabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,P.K.Singh,S.P. Srivastava,Suman Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- S.S.C.,A.K. Saxena,M.I. Khan,R.B.Singhal,Vaibhav Kaushik
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Abatement application qua petitioner no.2 namely Damber Singh Rathore shall stand allowed as the heirs of the petitioner no.2 do not wish to litigate.
The brief facts are that 20 employees were terminated and they had filed applications for quashment of their termination orders. The Tribunal after seven years had dismissed the petitions on technical ground that the petitioners were not the employees covered under the Act, therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal would have no jurisdiction. Certain developments, which have taken place are after the petitions were dismissed. The principal bench of Central Administrative Tribunal relying on the judgment of Apex Court has decided the issue in favour of the petitioners.The Tribunal in the judgment dated 01.10.1997 which was passed in O.A. No. 260 of 1990 has held in para 11, which is as follows:-
"The matter was referred to the Full Bench vide order dated 30.10.1996 to decide the question whether the employees of unit run canteens are Central Government servants and protected by Article 311 of the Constitution; and whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to hear the grievance of the employees of unit run canteens. This reference was made because there were divergent views of Jodhpur Bench and Allahabad Bench. The Full Bench considered these questions and answered them by a judgment dated 09.07.1997 holding the view that the employees of unit run canteens are not Central Government servants and therefore, not entitled to any protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. It further held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the grievance of the employees of the unit run canteens. In view of this decision of the Full Bench, we hold the view that this O.A. is not maintainable before this Tribunal because neither the applicants who are the employees of unit run canteens, Government servants, nor has this Tribunal jurisdiction to try the issue. The O.A. is, therefore, dismissed."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the subsequent orders passed by different Tribunals by filing supplementary affidavit, which has not been disputed by the respondents. The petitioners were given appointments.Similarly situated employee, namely, Ex-Hav Bishambhar Singh, which is at par with the petitioners, had approached Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench by filing O.A. No. 960 of 2001 (Ex-Hav Bishambhar Singh Vs. Union of India and others), wherein the challenge was his termination order. The Tribunal vide detailed judgment and order dated 05.02.2003 allowed the O.A. and set aside the termination order with all consequential benefits to the concern applicant. The petitioners are similarly situated is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The said observations of Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be permitted to operate in view of judgment of Apex Court in Union of India Vs. M. Aslam (2001)1 SCC 720. The matter was considered and the orders were passed on merits in favour of some of the petitioners way back on 26.04.1990. Thereafter, review petition was filed and after two years, the review was allowed on account of non filing of counter affidavit by the respondent authorities and the order dated 26.04.1990 has been recalled. After exchange of affidavits by the parties the matter was heard at length and vide judgment and order dated 01.10.1997 the O.A. was dismissed, against which the present writ petition has been filed.
Considering the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India Vs. M. Aslam (Supra), we have no other option but to grant the prayer:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 01.10.1997 passed by respondent no.1 and termination order passed by respondents dated 07.03.1990.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus staying the operation of the judgment dated 01.10.1997 passed by the respondent no.1 and termination orders dated 07.03.1990.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of command directing the respondents to have services of the present petitioners under their supervisory control by the respondents, during the pendency of the present writ petition of this Hon'ble Court."
In view of all these facts, we quash the order of Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the lis within four weeks from today after hearing the parties and considering the orders passed way back in the year 2003 in favour of person similarly situated to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
We are thankful to the counsel for ably assisting us.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 AK Pandey