Kerala High Court
Xavier Antony vs Union Of India
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/1ST CHAITHRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 4082 of 2010 (S)
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 726/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 00-00-0000
PETITIONERS:
------------
1. XAVIER ANTONY, CLERK,
S.N.C. OFFICERS MESS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,,
NAVAL BASE, KOCHI RESIDING AT OONATTU HOUSE,,
EZHUPUNNA SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA,, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
2. BEENA GENESH KUMAR, TYPIST CLERK,
S.N.C. OFFICERS MESS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,,
NAVAL BASE,KOCHI, RESIDING AT CHENNATTU HOUSE,,
THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
3. KRISHNA.S. NAIR, CLERK,
S.N.C. OFFICERS MESS,SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,,
NAVAL BASE, KOCHI RESIDING AT KOLLAPPALLIL HOUSE,,
S.H. MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686006.
4. KIRAN KUMAR.P.R,CLERK,
S.N.C. OFFICERS MESS,SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,,
NAVAL BASE, KOCHI RESIDING AT PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,
ARAKKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
NEW DELHI.
2. THE FLAG OFFICER
COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,,
NAVAL BASE P.O., KOCHI -4.
3. THE COMMANDING OFFICER,
(FOR PRESIDENT MESS COMMITTEE), S.N.C. OFFICERS MESS,
INS VENDURUTHY,, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI 682004.
R, BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RKC
WPC NO.4082/2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
P1: COPY OF THE SERVICE CONDITION 271/1 DATED 31.3.1979 BY SOUTHERN
NAVAL COMMAND OFFICERS MESS
P2: COPY OF THE FIXATION OF PAY BY 6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION DATED 30.8.2008
P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.9.08 ADDRESSED TO R3
P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
IN OA NO.726/08 DATED 10.12.09
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
RKC
TRUE COPY
PA TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN &
P.V.ASHA, JJ.
W.P.(C) No.4082 of 2010
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
Surendra Mohan, J.
The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ("the CAT" for short) dismissing O.A.No.726 of 2008 filed by them. The petitioners are employees of the Officers Mess attached to the Southern Naval Command (INS Venduruthy), Naval Base, Kochi. According to them, their service conditions are controlled and regulated by executive orders issued by the President of the Mess Committee, Southern Naval Command, Kochi, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P1. They complain that their service conditions are pathetic and the salary paid to them low, with no proper enhancement commensurate with the length of their service. The first petitioner who has 24 years of service to his credit is paid only Rs.5,954/- (Rupees Five thousand nine hundred and fifty four only). Similar is the case with the other petitioners. They contend that, in the case of the other employees of the Southern Naval W.P.(C) No.4082 of 2010 :2: Command discharging similar duties, periodic enhancement in salary and other service conditions are effected. The principle of equal pay for equal work requires their salaries and other service conditions to be modified. They had therefore approached the CAT by filing O.A.No.726 of 2008.
2. The claim of the petitioners was disputed by the respondents. It was pointed out that in the first place the CAT had no jurisdiction to consider the application for the reason that, the petitioners were not Central Government employees. Since they were being appointed by the President of the Mess Committee, their service conditions would not come within the jurisdiction of the CAT. It was further pointed out that their salary was being paid out of a fund created by contributions of the Officers. The said fund being a non regimental fund, they are not persons who are paid salary from any Government fund. The CAT accepted the contentions of the respondents, found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the grievances of the petitioners and dismissed the OA.
3. Adv.N.Radhakrishnan, who appears for the petitioners W.P.(C) No.4082 of 2010 :3: places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs.M.Aslam and others (2001 (1) SCC 720) and Parimal Chandra Raha and others V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (1995 Supp (2) SCC 611) to contend that canteen services form an integral part of the defence establishment. Such services are necessary to be provided to the defence personnel for the proper discharge of their duties. It is contended that the Supreme Court has held so in the decisions relied on. Therefore, the said dictum is applicable to the facts of the case also. Reliance is placed on the decision in Parimal Chandra Raha and others V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (supra) to contend that in the case of employees of a canteen under the Life Insurance Corporation of India also, the employees were held to be part of the establishment. Applying the said principle, the petitioners are also entitled to be treated as employees of the defence establishment, it is contended.
4. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioners are refuted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. W.P.(C) No.4082 of 2010 :4: According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, the petitioners are admittedly paid their salaries from a non regimental fund. The fund is constituted by contributions from the Officers. They are appointed by the President of the Mess Committee. Therefore, they cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to be Government employees. Therefore, the CAT was right in finding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application filed by the petitioners.
5. Heard. Admittedly the petitioners are appointed by the Mess Committee. They are paid salaries from out of a fund created by the contributions of the Officers. The same is a non Governmental fund. Therefore, they are not persons paid out of Government funds. Nor are they appointed by the Government. It is held by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to by the counsel for the petitioners that such persons as the petitioners would not become Government servants only for the reason that they are appointed by other Government servants.
6. We also notice that section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 confers jurisdiction on the CAT only to W.P.(C) No.4082 of 2010 :5: exercise jurisdiction over all service matters concerning a member of any All-India Service or a person appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union etc. The petitioners do not come within the scope of the provisions referred to above. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the grievances of the petitioners would come within the jurisdiction of the CAT. The CAT has therefore rightly declined jurisdiction in this matter.
For the above reasons this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDG rkc