High CourtDivision Bench2011-07-14Appeal allowed; Tribunal order and High Court j...

Union of India & Anr. v. Ram Singh Thakur & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2007; Civil Appeal No. 1197 of 2007

Neutral Citation:[2011] 8 SCR 242

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Judgment Date: 2011-07-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; Tribunal order and High Court judgments set aside; No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; Tribunal order and High Court judgments set aside; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India
Anr.

Respondents

Ram Singh Thakur
Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Harin P. Raval
• Wasim Quadri
• Anando Mukherjee
• Harsh N. Parekh
• Anirudh Sharma
• Arvind Kr. Sharma
• Mukesh Verma
• Shweta Verma
• Zaid Ali
• Shreekant N. Terdal
• B. Krishna Prasad

Counsels for Respondents

• Akshat Shrivastava
• P. P. Singh
• Inderjeet Yadav
• Parthapratim Chaudhuri
• Aditya Sharma
• K. S. Rana

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two Civil Appeals challenge a Central Administrative Tribunal directive directing induction/regularisation of employees of a Railway Employees’ Co‑operative Society into regular government railways posts. The Tribunal ordered the Chairman, Railway Board to formulate a scheme to induct respondents and similarly placed employees of other cooperatives into regular Group ‘D’ posts and, alternatively, as Casual Group ‘D’ employees; the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Gujarat High Court upheld those directions. The Supreme Court held that such a direction is unwarranted and illegal, emphasizing the constitutional separation of powers: framing a scheme for appointment or regularisation is an executive function to be exercised under Article 16 and other constitutional provisions. It relied on precedents including Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass & Anr. (2008) 1 SCR 683 and Union of India (Railway Board) v. J. V. Subhaiah & Ors. (1996) 2 SCR 258, to affirm that employees of cooperative societies are not government employees and that the judiciary should not encroach upon executive/legislative domains. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order and the High Court judgments were set aside; the appeals are allowed with no costs. The decision reinforces constitutional limits on judicial intervention in public employment and clarifies that non-governmental workers’ regularisation lies within executive authority. It also disposes of Civil Appeal No. 1197 of 2007 on similar terms.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 16

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Separation of powers
Judicial restraint
Executive function

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Union of India contends that the Tribunal’s directive to regularise employees of a Railway Employees’ Co‑operative Society into regular Group ‘D’ posts or as casual Group ‘D’ employees is unwarranted and illegal, intruding into the executive domain. It relies on the constitutional separation of powers and Article 16, arguing that framing a scheme for appointment is an executive function. The judiciary cannot compel such executive action or regularisation of non-government employees, and precedents such as Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass and Anr. and Union of India v. J. V. Subhaiah v. Ors. establish that cooperative employees are not government employees and that the judiciary should refrain from encroaching on executive/legislative domains.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the Tribunal’s directive was a legitimate measure to regularise employees who served within the railway setup through a cooperative society and that the High Court correctly upheld the Tribunal’s directive, reflecting a fair and equitable approach to regularisation for workers who contributed to railway operations.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr.	(2008) 1 SCR 683	Positive	Cited to support the principle of separation of powers and that judiciary should not encroach upon executive/legislative domains.
Union of India (Railway Board) v. J. V. Subhaiah & Ors.	(1996) 2 SCR 258	Positive	Cited to affirm that employees of cooperative societies are not government employees, reinforcing the executive domain in public employment decisions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Union of India & Anr. v. Ram Singh Thakur & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A [2011) 8 S.C.R. 242 ## UNION OF INDIA & ANR. _v._ RAM SINGH THAKUR & ORS. (Civil appeal No. 200 of 2007) B JULY 14, 2011 **[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]** ## Service _Law:_ ## c _Employees of Railway Employees Cosumer_ Co- _operative Society Ltd. Central Administrative Tribunal directing induction of claimants and employees of other cooperative societies in regular group 'D' posts and alternatively[Direction ]_ 0 _[also as casual group 'D' employees ][in ][Railways ]_[-] _upheld by High Court_ - _HELD': A direction regarding regularisation in service is a purely· executive function and_ - _such a direction cannot validly be given by the judiciary There is broad separation of powers in the Constitution of India_ E - _It is not proper for the judiciary to encroach into the domain_ - _of the Legislature or the Executive The framing of a scheme such as the one done by the Tribunal and approved by the_ - _High Court was a purely executive function The direction to frame a scheme for appointment can only be given by the Executive (and that too according to Article 16 and other_ F _provisions of the Constitution)_ - _Moreover, the employees of a co-operative society are not employees of the Government_ - _The impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the_ - - _order of the Tribunal set aside Constitution of India, 1950_ - - _Article 16 Constitutional law Separation of powers._ G ## _Co-operative Societies:_ - _Employees of co-operative societies HELD: Are not Government employees._ H 242 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. _v._ RAM SINGH THAKUR & 243 ORS. _Divisional Manager, Aravali Goff Club_ & _Anr. Vs. Chander Hass_ & _Anr._ 2007 (12) SCR 1084 = (2008) 1 SCC 683; and _Union of India. (Railway Board)_ & _Ors. vs. J. V. Subhiah_ & _Ors._ 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 812 = (1996) 2 SCC 258 - relied on. ## Case Law Reference: A B 2007 (12) SCR 1084 relied on para 6 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 812 relied on para 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2007. C From the Judgment & Order dated 15.9.2003 in WP No. 6661, 6662, 6663 & 6664 of 2002 and dated 21.11.2003 M.C.C. No. 3440 of 2003 in WPC No. 6661 of 2002, M.C.C. D No. 3368 of 2003 in WP No. 6663 of 2002 and MCC No. 3439 of 2003 in WP No. 6664 of 2002 of the High Court of . Judicature at· Jabalpur. · ## WITH C.A. No. 1197 of 2007. E Harin P. Raval, ASG, Wasim Quadri, Anando Mukherjee, Harsh N. Parekh, Anirudh Sharma, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Mukesh · Verma, Shweta Verma, Zaid Ali, Shreekant N. Terdal, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellants. · F Akshat Shrivastava, P.P. Singh, lnderjeet Yadav, Parthapratim Chaudhuri, Aditya Sharma, K.S. Rana for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered G ## ORDER Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2007 Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. [2011] 8 S.C.R. ## 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgments dated 15.09.2003 and dated 21.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment B dated 15.09.2003 as well as in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.05.2001 and hence we are not repeating the same here. The respondents were employees of a co-operative society c of Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. By its order dated 30.05.2001, the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) has directed the Chairman, Railway Board to formulate a suitable scheme for induction of the respondents and similarly placed employees of other coD operative societies in regular Group 'D' posts and alternatively also as Casual Group 'D' employees in the railways. This direction has been upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgments. E In our opinion, the order of the Tribunal as well as the impugned judgments of the High Court were totally unwarranted and illegal. There is broad separation of power in the Indian Constitution. As held by this Court in _Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club_ & _Anr_ Vs. _Chander_ Hass & _Anr.,_ (2008) 1 F sec 683, it is not proper for the Judiciary to encroach into the domain of the. Legislature or the Executive. The framing ,of a scheme such as the one done by the Tribunal and approved by the High Court was a purely executive function, and could not validly be done by the judiciary. G > Moreover, in view of-the judgment of this Court in _Union. of India [Railway Board]_ & Ors. Vs. _J. V. Subhaiah_ & Ors. (1996) 2 sec 258, the employees of a co-operative society are not employees of the Government. H - - UNION OF INDIA & ANR. _v._ RAM SINGH THAKUR & 245 ORS. In our opinion, the direction to frame a scheme for A appointment can only be given by the Executive (and that too according to Article 16 and other provisions of the Constitution). For the reasons stated above, the Appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgments of the High Court as well as the order of the Tribunal are set aside. No costs. 8 Civil Appeal No. 1197 of 2007 Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. c This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 8536 of 2003. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and in the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated D . 28.03.2002 and hence we are not repeating the same here. It appears that the respondents were working in a _Mess run by the trainee officers in the Railway Staff College. That Mess was not run by the railways but was run by the trainee E officers themselves so that they could get proper meals. It is evident that the respondents were not railway employees, but a direction has been given that they be regularised in railway service. In our opinion, a direction regarding regularisation in service is a purely executive function and such a direction cannot validly be given by the judiciary. F Consequently, this Appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Tribunal are set aside. G No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.