UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusCHOTELAL AND ORS.

                     UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                                     A
                                     v.
                         CHOTELAL AND ORS.

                           DECEMBER~" 1998

        [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTA~IK, JJ.]                               B

     Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 14 (J)(a)-Post of Dhabi
at National Defence Academy-Whether Civil Post-Paid out of Regimental
Fund-Held-Regimental Fund not public fund-Dhobis not holding Civil
Post-Jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal barred.                     C
    Defence Services Regulation-Para 801 (a)&(b) and Rule 820-Public
Fund- Regimental Fund-Not public fund-Exercise of some control by
commanding officer on Dhobis-Will not mean payment to them is made from
Consolidated Fund or of any Public Fund.
                                                                                 D
     The respondents are Dhobis appointed to wash the clothes of the cadets
at NDA, Khadakwasla and are paid from the fund called 'Regimental Fund'.
The question which arose for consideration was whether Dhobis so appointed
can be said to be holders of civil post so as to confer jurisdiction on the
Central Administrative Tribunal for issuing direction in relation to their
~~~~-                                                                            E
      The Tribunal by the impugned judgment concluded that the 'Regimental
Fund' from out of which Dhobis are paid their salaries gets covered by both
the Consolidated Fund of India through the grants-in-aid and it is paid to the
institutions under the military which have to be funded and set up to ensure
the various activities. It further held that Regimental Funds are controlled     F
and audited by the Controller and Auditor General of Defence Account
alongwith other Public Accounts of the Government and as such the posts
of Dhobis are civilian posts connected with Defence conferring jurisdiction
on the Tribunal to redress the grievances.

      Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the UOI that Dhobis
                                                                                 G
engaged for washing clothes of the cadets do not satisfy any of the conditions
enumerated under Section 14(l)(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985
so as to con fer jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal.

      On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the washing             H
                                     449
    450                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A allowance pJyable to the cadet being paid from the Consolidated Fund oflndia
    and the same being credited into a fund called 'Regimental Fund' and Dho1ii5
    being paid out of the said funds, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the
    conclusion that the Regimental Fund itself gets impressed with the character
    of tho.consolidated Fund and holders of post paid out of that fund in the true
    spirit and sense must be held to be holders of civil post under the Ministry
B   of Defence of the Union Government and, therefore Tribunal gets the
    jurisdiction to decide the service conditions of the holders of such posts.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court

          HELD: 1.1. The Regimental Fund cannot be held to be Public Fund by
C any stretch of imagination and the Dhobis paid out of such fund cannot be
    held to be holders of Civil Post within the Ministry of Defence so as to confer
    jurisdiction on the Central Admipistrative Tribunal to issue directions
    ~elating to their service conditions. [453-8-C]


D         1.2. Only because of exercise of some control by the Commanding
    Officer over such Dhobis it can not be concluded that these posts are civil
    posts and that payment to the holders of such post is made from out of the
    Consolidated Fund of India or of any public fund under the control of
    Ministry of Defence. [453-C-DJ

E         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 921 of 1995.

         From the Judgment and Ord.er dated 9.2.94 of the Central Administrative
    Tribunal at Bombay in O.A. No. 454 of 1992.

         V.C. Mahajan, N.B. Shetye, Ms. Rekha Pandey, R.B. Misra, Ms. Halida
F   Khatoon, (S.W.A. Qadri) for Ms. A. Subhashini, A.M. Khanwilkar, A.P. Mayee,
    C.A. Khaladkar, (Dr. Suman! Bhardwaj) for Ms. Mirdula Ray Bhardwaj, Ms.
    Subhadra Chturvedi, Amitabh Chaturvedi and Rajesh Nair, (Naresh Kum_ar) for
    K.N. Rai for the apperaing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
          PATT ANAIK, J. This appeal by Union of India is directed against the
    order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Bombay, dated
    9.1.1994. The short question that arises for consideration is whether Dhobis
    appointed to wash the clothes of the cadets at NOA, Khadakwasla and are
    paid from the fund called 'Regimental Fund' can be said to be holders of civil
H   post so as to confer jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal for
                    U.0.1. v. CHOTELAL [PATTANAIK, J.]                       451
issuing any direction in relation to their service conditions? The Tribunal by       A
the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the 'Regimental Fund'
from out to which Dhobis are paid their salaries gets covered by both the
Consolidated Fund of India through the grants-in-aid as it is paid to the
institutions under the military which have to be funded and set up to ensure
the various activities including social and welfare activities. It further held      B
that Regimental Funds are controlled and audited by the Controller and
Auditor General of Defence Account alongwith other Public Accounts of the
Government and as such the posts of Dhobis are civilian posts connected
with Defence conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to redress the grievances.
On merits the Tribunal taking into account the fact that Dhobis are working
for nearly 30 years in the Defence establishment and yet are not covered by          C
the Provident Fund Act and other Government schemes issued the direction
that the authorities of ND A may prepare a scheme for appointment of Dhobis
on permanent basis and put them on regular footing as permanent government
employee.

        Mr. Mahajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant              D
contends that in view of the nature of duties discharged by these Dhobis,
the nature of fund from which their salaries are paid, the nature ·of control that
is exercised by the authorities of the National Defence Academy over such
Dhobis the conclusion of the Tribunal that the posts are Civil posts is wholly
erroneous and the same cannot be sustained. According to Mr. Mahajan,                E
under Section 14( 1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Central
Administrative Tribunal on land from the appointed day exercise jurisdiction
in relation to the recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All
India Service or to any Civil service of the Union or a Civil post under the
Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being,
 in either case, a post filled by a civilian. Dhobis engaged for washing clothes     F
of the cadets do not satisfy any of these pre-conditions so as to confer
jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the impugned
order of the Tribunal is un-sustainable in law. Learned counsel appearing for
the respondent on the other hand contended, that the washing allowance
payable to the cadets being paid from the Consolidated Fund of India and             G
the same being credited into a fund called 'Regimental Fund' and Dhobis
being paid from out of the said funds, the Tribunal was justified in coming
to the conclusion that the Regimental Fund itself gets impressed with the
character of the Consolidated Fund and holders of post paid out of that fund
 in true spirit and sense must be held to be holders of civil post under the
 Ministry of Defence of the Union Government and, therefore, Tribunal gets           H

                                                                  .
     452                        SUP.REME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the jurisdiction to decide the service conditions of the holders of such posts.
     The learned counsel further contended that taking into account the gross
     injustice meted out to such Dhobis who have been serving the cadets for
     more than 30 years,. the Tribunal rightly issued certain directions to evolve
     a scheme for regularisation of such Dhobis and there is no illegality with the
B    order of the Tribunal so as to be interfered by this Court under Article 136
     of the Constitution.

        In view of the rival contentions raised, the most crucial question that
  arises for consideration is what is the nature of the post against which the
  Dhobis get their appointment for discharging the duties of washing clothes
C of the cadets? From the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment
  issued to such Dhobis it is crystal clear that the appointments cannot be held
  to be one against any civil post. On the other hand it clearly indicates that
  the appointment is purely private payable out of Regimental Fund. Initially
  these Dhobis were being paid at a particular rate per cadet on the basis of
  actual number of cadets a Dhobi is required to serve, but later on a monthly
D salary, no doubt, has been fixed for being paid to such Dhobis. The terms
  of appointment, no doubt vest certain control over such Dohbis on the
  Commandant of the Academy but nonetheless such control cannot impress
  the post of Dhobis with the character of a Civil post. It is also borne out from
  the record that each cadet is granted a monthly Dhobi allowance and the said
E allowance 'is put into a fund called 'Regimental Fund' under the management
  of Commanding Officer of the institution. At this stage it would be appropriate
  to notice some provisions of the Defence Services Regulation which would
  give an idea as to the characteristic of the Regimental Fund. Under Para 801
  of the Regulation Public Funds have been defined as such :-

F            "801 (a) Public Funds - Include all funds which are financed entirely
             from public money, the unexpanded balances of which are refundable
             to Government in the event of not being devoted to the objects for
             which granted, and also

             (i) unissued pay and allowances;
a·
             (ii) Office allowance fund; and

             (iii) the estates of deceased men an desertets."

           Para 801 (b) defines 'Regimental Fund' to mean comprising all funds,
H    other than public funds maintained by a Unit.




                                                           I
                                U.0.1. v. CHOTELAL [PATTANAIK ,J.]                      453
                  Rule 820 provides for administration of such Regimental Fund and              A
            820(a) clearly indicates that all funds other than public funds as defined in
            Para 80 I maintained by a unit, which are financed either wholly or partly from
            public money. Regulation further provides that the Commanding Officer acts
            as a trustee in relation to the 'Regimental Fund' and is responsible that the
            funds are properly applied with special reference to the object of the fund         B
            aud for the benefit of the personnel or unit as a whole.

       .I
                  In view of the characters of the Regimental Fund, as discussed above,
            we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said fund cannot
            be held to be public fund by any stretch of imagination and the Dhobis paid
            out of such fund cannot be held to be holders of Civil post within the              C
            Ministry of Defence so as to confer jurisdiction of the Central Administrative
            Tribunal to issue direction relating to their service conditions. It is of course
            true that the Commanding Officer exercises some control over such Dhobis
            but on that score alone it cannot be concluded that the posts are civil posts
            and that payments to the holders of such post is made from out of the
            Consolidated Fund of India or of any public fund under the control of               D
            Ministry of Defence.

....              In the aforesaid premises the contention of Mr. Mahajan, learned senior
            counsel that the Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into
            the question of service conditions of such Dhobis has to be sustained and
            consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. We            E
            accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the
            OA. This appeal is allowed, but, in the circumstances without any order as
            to costs.

            A.M.                                                           Appeal allowed.