Allowed

Union of India v. Chander Paul

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Nov 2024CWP/1607/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Union of India against regularization orders passed by CAT. The Court held that privately engaged regimental drivers are not government servants, following Supreme Court precedent, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Tribunal dated 16.01.2013, 23.12.2013, and 01.05.2014 were set aside.

Union of India Vs Chander Paul — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

( 2024:HHC:11051 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 9103/2014 & CWP 1607/2013

¶4

Reserved on: 8.11.2024 Decided on : 11.11.2024.

¶5

CWP No.9103/2014

¶6

Union of India & ors. …..Petitioners Versus Chander Paul ….Respondent. CWP No.1607/2013 Union of India & ors. … Petitioners Versus Chander Paul ….. Respondent

¶7

Coram:

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice . The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

For the Petitioners: Mr. Balram Sharma, , Dy.S.G.I. with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.

¶11

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice

¶12

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in

¶13

both these petitions, therefore, they were taken up together for

¶14

hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶16

( 2024:HHC:11051 )

¶17

¶18

2 The respondent, Chander Paul, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) by filing O.A. No.1326/HP/2011, wherein he questioned the order dated, 15.12.2011 whereby the respondent had been directed to execute a contract/agreement deed with the petitioners-Union of India, for further employment before 20.12.2011. In addition thereto, certain others prayers like conferring work charge status/regularization of services of the respondent on completion of 10 years had also been sought.

¶19

3 The Tribunal, vide its order dated 16.01.2013, allowed the petition by quashing the order dated 15.12.2011 without touching upon the other reliefs as had been sought by the respondent.

¶20

4 Since the services of the respondent have not been ordered to be regularized, he thereafter, again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 174/HP/2013, wherein he sought regularization of his services on the premise that he had been working with the petitioners since September, 1987. This petition came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.12.2013 and directions were issued to the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent for regularization in terms of para-44 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi , 2006 (4) SCC 1.

¶21

5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 23.12.2013, the petitioners thereafter filed review petition before the Tribunal, however, the same too came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 01.05.2014 constraining the petitioners to file CWP No.9103 of 2014.

¶22

( 2024:HHC:11051 )

¶23

¶24

6 The respondent despite service has chosen not to appear before

¶25

the court.

¶26

7 It is not in dispute that the respondent had been hired by the petitioners to work as a causally engaged employee/driver under the Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) locally framed for the engagement of casual employees and paid from the Regimental Funds, which contain the contributions made by the relevant soldiers from the salary maintained.

¶27

8 It was in this background that the respondent had been asked to sign the contract for 11 months on 15.12.2011, but he instead approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of the said order, as also seeking regularization of his services.

¶28

9 Therefore, in such circumstances, the moot question is whether a privately engaged driver, who was driving the regimental vehicle(s) and being paid from the regimental funds, can claim right for regularization of his services.

¶29

10 The answer is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Dyalu Ram 2019 (14) SCC 659 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employees of regimental canteens are neither government servants nor they are engaged in connection with civil post under the Union. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of such employees under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 11 Following the aforesaid judgment, similar view has already been taken by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan) while adjudicating a

¶30

( 2024:HHC:11051 )

¶31

¶32

batch of petitions lead being CWP No. 2385 of 2017 titled Jasbir Singh

¶33

Kanwar versus Union of India decided on 10.12.2019 .

¶34

12 Obviously, once the respondent does not have status of government servant, this court is left with no other option, but to set aside the impugned orders, dated 16.01.2013, 23.12.2013 and 01.05.2014 passed by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly.

¶35

Bother the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending

¶36

application(s), if any also stands disposed of.

¶37

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice

¶38

(Satyen Vaidya) 11.11.2024 Judge

¶39

(pankaj/yogesh)

Union of India v. Chander Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Chander Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Desh Raj

Madan Lal Chauhan and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. Vs Union of India and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Ranjha Ram and Others

Additional Chief Secretary Forest Vs Ms Vidhimata Wood Pvt. Ltd.

Vijay Kuamr and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.