2. The issue is as to the status of an employee of Unit Run Canteen in Armed Forces. 3. Appellant Shri R.R. Pillai was recruited as Airman in the Indian Air force on 7.10.1967 and was discharged from service on 31.10.1988 as Junior Warrant Officer as he sought for premature retirement from service. Before his discharge he had been looking after the affairs of the Unit-Run-Canteen (in short the `URC'). After discharge he was engaged as Manager of URC at Southern Air Command on an honorarium of Rs.1,000/-P.M. w.e.f 1.2.1989.
Para 6 of the appointment letter clearly stated that the appointment was governed by the terms and conditions as laid down in Air HQ letter No.20728/P/Org dated 31st January, 1984 issued under the relevant Regulations. The terms and conditions of service of canteen employees are covered by the rules called "The Rules regulating the Terms and Conditions of Service of' Civilian Employees of Air Force Unit Run Canteen paid out of Non Public Funds".
4. According to the appellant the view taken in Mohd Aslam's case (supra) is the correct view, it is stated that even if Canteen Store Department (in short the `CSD') was not the source of funding, other parameters clearly cover the employees in question of Government service. 5. Reference is made to certain decisions to support the stand, e.g., Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao and Anr. (1982 (1) SCC 442 (para 9) and Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev and Anr. (1992 (4) SCC 404 at 412). Even if full funding is not there partial funding by quality discount is there which is the test for determining as to which employee is a government servant. Reference is also made to certain subsequent decisions in which Aslam's case (supra) has been referred to. It is pointed out that on the date the OAs were decided, Aslam's case (supra) was applicable and therefore de facto doctrine would apply. In any event, it is stated that Rule 24 cannot take out the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document