Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusRAM SINGH THAKUR & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 493
- Decided
- 14 July 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A direction for regularisation of employees of a cooperative society into government service is a purely executive function and cannot be issued by the judiciary, as it violates the separation of powers and the employees are not government servants under Article 16.
Summary
The Supreme Court heard a civil appeal filed by the Union of India challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that directed the Railway Board to devise a scheme to induct employees of the Railway Employees Consumer Co‑operative Society Ltd. into regular Group ‘D’ posts, a direction that had been upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that such a direction amounts to a purely executive function and that the judiciary cannot encroach upon the domain of the legislature or executive, especially where the employees of a co‑operative society are not government servants under Article 16 of the Constitution. Relying on the principles of separation of powers and earlier judgments, the Court set aside both the Tribunal order and the High Court judgments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the orders were annulled. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal can validly direct the Railway Board to formulate a scheme for regularising employees of a co‑operative society in government service.
- Whether such a direction infringes the doctrine of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
- Whether employees of a co‑operative society are deemed government employees for purposes of Article 16 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 16
Subjects
service lawseparation of powersconstitutional lawArticle 16regularisationcooperative societiesgovernment employeesCentral Administrative Tribunalexecutive function
Judgment
[2011) 8 S.C.R. 242
--
A UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
RAM SINGH THAKUR & ORS.
(Civil appeal No. 200 of 2007)
JULY 14, 2011
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
PRASAD, JJ.]
Service Law:
c
Employees of Railway Employees Cosumer Co-
operative Society Ltd. - Central Administrative Tribunal
directing induction of claimants and employees of other co-
operative societies in regular group 'D' posts and alternatively
0 also as casual group 'D' employees in Railways - Direction
upheld by High Court - HELD': A direction regarding
regularisation in service is a purely· executive function and
such a direction cannot validly be given by the judiciary -
There is broad separation of powers in the Constitution of India
E - It is not proper for the judiciary to encroach into the domain
of the Legislature or the Executive - The framing of a scheme
such as the one done by the Tribunal and approved by the
High Court was a purely executive function - The direction
to frame a scheme for appointment can only be given by the
Executive (and that too according to Article 16 and other
F provisions of the Constitution) - Moreover, the employees of
a co-operative society are not employees of the Government
- The impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the
order of the Tribunal set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 16 - Constitutional law - Separation of powers.
G
Co-operative Societies:
Employees of co-operative societies - HELD: Are not
Government employees.
H 242
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. RAM SINGH THAKUR & 243
ORS.
Divisional Manager, Aravali Goff Club & Anr. Vs. A
=
Chander Hass & Anr. 2007 (12) SCR 1084 (2008) 1 SCC
683; and Union of India. (Railway Board) & Ors. vs. J. V.
=
Subhiah & Ors. 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 812 (1996) 2 SCC
258 - relied on.
B
Case Law Reference:
2007 (12) SCR 1084 relied on para 6
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 812 relied on para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 200 C
of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.9.2003 in WP No.
6661, 6662, 6663 & 6664 of 2002 and dated 21.11.2003
M.C.C. No. 3440 of 2003 in WPC No. 6661 of 2002, M.C.C. D
No. 3368 of 2003 in WP No. 6663 of 2002 and MCC No. 3439
of 2003 in WP No. 6664 of 2002 of the High Court of
. Judicature at· Jabalpur. ·
WITH
C.A. No. 1197 of 2007. E
Harin P. Raval, ASG, Wasim Quadri, Anando Mukherjee,
Harsh N. Parekh, Anirudh Sharma, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Mukesh ·
Verma, Shweta Verma, Zaid Ali, Shreekant N. Terdal, B.
Krishna Prasad for the Appellants. · F
Akshat Shrivastava, P.P. Singh, lnderjeet Yadav,
Parthapratim Chaudhuri, Aditya Sharma, K.S. Rana for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered G
ORDER
Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2007
Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.
--
A This Appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgments dated 15.09.2003 and dated 21.11.2003 passed by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment
B dated 15.09.2003 as well as in the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 30.05.2001 and hence we are not
repeating the same here.
The respondents were employees of a co-operative society
c of Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. By
its order dated 30.05.2001, the Central Administrative Tribunal
(for short 'the Tribunal) has directed the Chairman, Railway
Board to formulate a suitable scheme for induction of the
respondents and similarly placed employees of other co-
D operative societies in regular Group 'D' posts and alternatively
also as Casual Group 'D' employees in the railways. This
direction has been upheld by the High Court in the impugned
judgments.
E In our opinion, the order of the Tribunal as well as the
impugned judgments of the High Court were totally unwarranted
and illegal. There is broad separation of power in the Indian
Constitution. As held by this Court in Divisional Manager,
Aravali Golf Club & Anr Vs. Chander Hass & Anr., (2008) 1
F sec 683, it is not proper for the Judiciary to encroach into the
domain of the. Legislature or the Executive. The framing ,of a
scheme such as the one done by the Tribunal and approved
by the High Court was a purely executive function, and could
not validly be done by the judiciary.
G
Moreover, in view of-the judgment of this Court in Union.
of India [Railway Board] & Ors. Vs. J. V. Subhaiah & Ors.
(1996) 2 sec 258, the employees of a co-operative society
are not employees of the Government.
H
-- UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. RAM SINGH THAKUR & 245
ORS.
In our opinion, the direction to frame a scheme for A
appointment can only be given by the Executive (and that too
according to Article 16 and other provisions of the Constitution).
For the reasons stated above, the Appeal stands allowed
and the impugned judgments of the High Court as well as the 8
order of the Tribunal are set aside. No costs.
Civil Appeal No. 1197 of 2007
Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.
c
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
dated 23.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in
Special Civil Application No. 8536 of 2003.
The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and
in the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated D .
28.03.2002 and hence we are not repeating the same here.
It appears that the respondents were working in a _Mess
run by the trainee officers in the Railway Staff College. That
Mess was not run by the railways but was run by the trainee E
officers themselves so that they could get proper meals. It is
evident that the respondents were not railway employees, but
a direction has been given that they be regularised in railway
service.
In our opinion, a direction regarding regularisation in F
service is a purely executive function and such a direction
cannot validly be given by the judiciary.
Consequently, this Appeal stands allowed. The impugned
judgment as well as the judgment of the Tribunal are set aside. G
No costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search