XAVIER ANTONY, CLERK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 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.