was 17 years 6 months 25 days. The appointment order appointing the petitioner as temporary canteen bearer in the year 1978 clearly stipulates that the petitioner is treated as a temporary employee at the initial wage of Rs. 75/-. Such order of appointment does not confer any right and /or any privileges admissible to a person substantively employed. Such order of appointment, in the considered opinion of this court, did not create any relationship of master and servant between the petitioner as an employee under the Food Corporation of India Ltd. in as much as admittedly the appointment order was issued by Canteen Management Committee, which consists of representative of Staff of FCI. It is also important to note that at that point in time, no scale of pay or any other benefit admissible to a regular employee was granted to the petitioner. It is also not a case that the canteen run by the FCI is a statutory canteen. Law is by now well settled that the statutory canteen, which is required to be established under the statute and the non-statutory canteen, which is run by the committees, stand on a different footing. It is true that the canteen in question was run on certain subsidies given by the FCI, however, the grant of such subsidy shall not make the engagement of the petitioner a substantive status during the temporary period till his service was regularized in 1983.
