Union of India and Ors. v Kamla Devi

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: MRS. RUMA PAL
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN
Judgment Date: 2005-07-22
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the decisions of the Delhi High Court and related orders are set aside; the cut-off date for classification of non-statutory canteen employees is deemed concluded by the 10 August 1993 order and cannot be varied in CAT or High Court; the final framework as laid out by the Court’s 1993 clarifications stands.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; lower court decisions set aside; the cut-off date and pension framework as settled by the 10 August 1993 order are upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

Kamla Devi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Harish Chandra
• Ms. Pareena Swarup
• Praveen Swarup
• Amit Singh
• V. K. Verma

Counsels for Respondents

• Mrs. Rekha Palli

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court case concerns the pension rights of non-statutory canteen employees of the Government of India and the cut-off date for their classification as government servants. The Court traces its predecessors to M.M.R. Khan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1990), which held that canteen workers in statutory and certain non-statutory positions could be treated as Railway employees for purposes of the Factories Act and related service rules, with different date-based eligibility for benefits. Post proceedings in writ petitions, interim orders were issued in 1983 and 1991 directing that those petitioners would receive parallel pay and pension treatment, with service counted from 26.9.1983 and pension computed for those who retired after 1.10.1991. In 1993, the Court clarified that the pension framework would apply to retirees after 1.10.1991, while allowing some consideration of prior service to make up shortfalls. Later petitions sought to alter the cut-off date, but the Court held that the cut-off date was concluded by the 10.8.1993 order and could not be reopened before CAT or High Courts. The Federation’s challenge to change the cut-off date was thus rejected. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts’ decisions and affirming the finality of the 1993 order regarding the cut-off date and pension entitlement.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 32 of the Constitution of IndiaProviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of IndiaFactories Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Union contends that the cut-off for classification of non-statutory canteen employees as Government servants was settled by the 10 August 1993 order and has attained finality; the pension scheme is to be implemented strictly as laid down, with beneficiaries limited to those who retired after 1 October 1991 and with service counted from 26 September 1983 to bridge any shortfall, as clarified by the Court. It argues that the writ petitions, CAT proceedings, and High Court rulings cannot be reopened to alter this settled position; the matter has been implemented in accordance with the Khan precedent, and further variation would be improper and financially burdensome.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents seek parity with Railway employees and urge re-opening of the cut-off date, arguing that benefits should extend beyond retirees after 1 October 1991 and that prior service should be counted to make up for any shortfall. They rely on earlier interim reliefs and seek recalculation to include those retirees who were previously excluded, contending that the 1993 clarifications and subsequent orders did not finalize the matter for all canteen workers and that the Tribunal’s and High Court’s actions should be revisited.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
M.M.R. Khan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.	[1990] Supp. SCC 191	Positive	Cited to establish the employer–employee relationship for canteen workers and to support the parity/entitlement framework later applied to non-statutory canteens.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A _'I_ ## UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ## _v._ ## KAMLADEVI ## **B** ## illLY22,2005 [MRS. RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] ## _Service Law:_ ## **c** _Pension-Cut-off date-Railways-Non-statutory canteen employeesCut-off date classifying them as sucfl-Grant of pension to those who retired after 1.10.1991-By order dated 10.8.1993 passed by Supreme CourtEmployee retiring prior to 1.10.1991 claiming pension-Held, as far as cut off date of classification of non-statutory canteen employees is concerned, it_ **D** _must be taken to have been concluded by order dated 10.8.1993-/t was not open to the employees concerned to seek variation of the same._ _MMR. Khan and Ors._ v. _Union of India and Ors.,_ **[1990) Supp.** SCC **191, referred to.** E CIVIL APPELLATE illRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4502 of2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.2004 of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 12903 of2004. Harish Chandra, Ms. Pareena Swarup, Praveen Swarup, Amit Singh and - **F** V.K. Verma with him for the Appellants. Mrs. Rekha Palli for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : ## G ## **ORDER** Leave granted. The respondent's husband was a canteen employee. He was appointed on 1st 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 II 782 783 U.0.1. _v._ KAMLA DEVI - 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 l l.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 B to have retrospective effect from first day of October, 1979. > The workers of the canteen 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. (i) Statutory canteens (ii) Non-statutory recognized canteens and (iii) nonstatutory 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 and Ors._ v. _Union of India and Ors._ reported in [1990] Supp. D SCC 191. This Court held that the relation~hip 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 E recognised canteens as Railway employees with effect from October 27, 1980. However, the Court went on to say that the employees of the other nonstatutory recognised canteens would, however, be treated as Railway employees with effect from 1st April 1990, and that they would be extended all the benefits as such Railway employees with effect from that date, according F to the service conditions prescribed for them under the relevant rules and orders. The claim of the non-statutory non-recognized canteen workers was negatived. > The husband of the respondent together with other employees of nonstatutory recognized canteens filed writ petitions in which similar reliefs as G 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. l 0.1991: "We 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 H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A reasons indicated in the said Judgement and direct the benefits to be given to the Petitioners in the following way. B By an _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. For the purpose of calculation of pension service from the date of the interlocutory order shall be counted. By the _interim_ order dated 22.9.1983 referred to in the body of the C quotation above, a direction was 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. D· ,E F On the application of the Union of India for clarification of the order d~ted 11.10.1991, quoted earlier, on l 0th 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_ l.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 quali.fying period, the service rendered thein prior to 26.9.83 will be t~en 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 js disposed of accordingly." i I- Admittedly? 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 G 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 Tribunai whichever had the jurisdiction. In other words, the order dated l 0th August 1993 was not interfered with. H Taking a cue from this order, the canteen workers sought to reopen the 785 U.0.1. _v._ KAMLA DEVI issue of the cut off date before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The A respondent's husband filed an independent application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The CAT directed the Union of India to 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 B 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. Challenging this order the appellants have approached this Court. c We are 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. It was not open to the respondent to seek variation of the same either before the CAT or the High Court. The oi;.der dated 10th August 1993 has attained finality and there can be no dispute as to the language of the order. The respondent could D 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. RP. Appeal allowed.