to “employees of the Government” or “employees of MCD”. It is pointed out that in Vaghela (supra) this Court while dealing with persons employed in identical circumstances, that is “engaged for a period of six months from the date of joining or till a candidate selected by UPSC joined on a regular basis”, held that the term “government servant” did not refer to or include persons employed on contract basis. It is argued that on the same principle, the term “employees of MCD” cannot include a contract employee of MCD. We cannot agree. Vaghela related to contract employment by the Government whereas in this case the contract employment is by a municipal corporation. The reason that weighed with this Court in Vaghela to hold that a contract employee was not a government servant, was in view of the special connotation of the term “government servant”. This Court after referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (1968 (1) SCR 185) and the decision in Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam (1977 (4) SCC 441) held that employment under the Government is a matter of status and not a contract even though acquisition of such a status may be preceded by a contract; and that contract employees of the Government were governed by the terms of contract and did not possess the status of government servants, nor were governed by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, nor enjoyed the protection under Article 311. But a municipal corporation is not “Government”, and municipal employees are not government servants governed by Articles 309 to 311. Though permanent employees of municipal corporation or other statutory bodies may be governed by statutory rules, they do not enjoy the status of government servants. Therefore, the decision in Vaghela, rendered with
