JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

Union of India v. Vinod Kumar

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

553

Message
show

Union of India v. Vinod Kumar

This case deals with the service conditions of civilian employees attached with the Indian Armed Forces.

Petitioners Arguments
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the later case of R.R. Pillai v. Commanding Officer, HQS, Southern Air Command , disagreed with the judgement espoused in the Mohd. Aslam case. On the basis of this case, therefore, the appeal of the Union of India must be allowed.
Responders Arguments
The order passed by a three-judge bench of this Court in Union of India v. Bheek Singh Rathore , approved and followed the judgement of Mohd. Aslam . Therefore, since there is a conflict between two three-judge bench judgements, in R.R. Pillai and Union of India v. Bheek Singh Rathore , the matter must be considered by a larger bench.
Last Listed On
2023-09-14
Start Date
2023-09-14
Card Stage Date
2023-09-14
Review Petition No
C.A. No. 1214 / 2011
Case Status
Pending
Bench Status
Not Constituted
Subject Matter
Administrative Law
Pendency
2 years, 9 months, 16 days

5 Judge Bench

Reference to larger bench

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
true

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to larger Bench

The Commandant & MD, 510, Army Base Workshop, i.e., the Appellant, invited applicants for interviews for the temporary posts of salespersons. The Respondent appeared for the interview, and was eventually appointed on 29-08-1997. On 28-04-2003, the Ministry of Defence formulated the "Rules Regulating the Terms and Conditions of Service of Civilian Employees of Unit Run Canteen paid out of Non Public Funds". On the basis of these Rules, the Respondent requested for the regularisation of his work and for his treatment as a permanent employee. A reply was issued to him that he would not fall within the ambit of the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India v. Mohd. Aslam , pursuant to which the aforementioned Rules were promulgated, since he was engaged as a daily wager. Subsequently, the Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and filed OA No. 1485 / 2006 seeking regularisation, who ruled in the favour of the Respondent. The Union of India filed a writ petition against the order passed by the Tribunal before the Delhi High Court. On 02-04-2009, the Court dismissed this writ petition and affirmed the Tribunal’s order on the grounds that it was consistent with Mohd. Aslam . Therefore, the Union of India approached the Supreme Court via this Civil Appeal.

In the present case, would the precedent laid down in Mohd. Aslam apply or would the disapproving view laid down in R.R. Pillai v. Commanding Officer, HQS, Southern Air Command hold good, both being three-judge benches?

The Ministry of Defence Rules Regulating the Terms and Conditions of Service of Civilian Employees of Unit Run Canteen paid out of Non Public Funds

Owing to the fact that the judgement in Mohd. Aslam was pronounced by a three-judge bench and both subsequent judgements, one disapproving of it ( R.R. Pillai ) and one affirming it ( B heek Singh Rathore ) , were also pronounced by three-judge benches; the matter requires consideration by a larger bench of five judges.

Union of India v. Mohd. Aslam

R.R. Pillai v. Commanding Officer, HQS, Southern Air Command

Union of India v. Bheek Singh Rathore

Are Civilian Employees Of Armed Forces Unit Run Canteens Government Servants? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Are Civilian Employees Of Armed Forces Unit Run Canteens Government Servants? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
Source Of Info
Livelaw
Date Of Fr
2023-09-16