Holding

The cut‑off date issue was conclusively decided by the order dated 10 August 1993 and cannot be reopened; therefore the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The appellant Union of India challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal order that granted pension benefits to a deceased canteen employee who retired before the cut‑off date of 1 October 1991. The employee’s husband had retired on medical grounds on 12 July 1990 and died on 28 March 1991. Earlier Supreme Court judgments (M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India, 1990) had classified non‑statutory recognised canteen workers as Railway employees and fixed the pension cut‑off date of 1 October 1991, clarified by an order dated 10 August 1993. The Tribunal’s direction to extend benefits to pre‑cut‑off retirees was contested by the Union, which filed a writ petition that was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the cut‑off date issue was conclusively settled by the 10 August 1993 order and could not be reopened before the CAT or any other forum. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the lower courts' decisions set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the cut‑off date for pension eligibility of non‑statutory recognised canteen employees, as fixed by the Supreme Court order dated 10 August 1993, can be varied or reopened before the Central Administrative Tribunal or the High Court.
Whether employees who retired before 1 October 1991 are entitled to pension benefits despite the established cut‑off date.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.309, s. Art.32

Subjects

Service LawPensionCut‑off dateCanteen employeesRailway employeesCentral Administrative TribunalSupreme CourtRetrospective notificationCivil posts

Judgment

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 employees-
Cut-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 Court-
Employee 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 :
ORDER
G
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
U.0.1. v. KAMLA DEVI 783
with effect from 1.10.1979 the Government would treat all posts in canteen and A
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) non- C
statutory 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 non-
statutory 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 non-
statutory 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.

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,
B 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· 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
,E 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 t-'
extent of the short fall. On these clarifications we find that there is i
I-
nothing further to be done in the matter. It js disposed of accordingly."
F
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
U.0.1. v. KAMLA DEVI 785
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
Tribunal's order should also be made available in respect of persons when B
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.

We are of the view that the issue as far as cut-off date of classification
c
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.