Union Of India And Another v. Chotelal And Others

G.B Pattanaik, J.— This appeal by the 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 NDA, Khadakwasla and who are paid from the fund called the “Regimental Fund” can be said to be holders of civil posts so as to confer jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal for issuing any direction in relation to their service conditions. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion 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 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 that Regimental Funds are controlled and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Defence Accounts along with other Public Accounts of the Government and as such the posts of dhobis are civilian posts connected with the defence conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to redress their 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 the Provident Funds Act, 1925 and other government schemes issued the direction that the authorities of NDA may prepare a scheme for appointment of dhobis on permanent basis and put them on a regular footing as permanent government employees.

2. Mr Mahajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that in view of the nature of the duties discharged by these dhobis, the nature of the 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, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Central Administrative Tribunal on and from the appointed day exercises 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 the defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian. Dhobis engaged for washing clothes of the cadets do not satisfy any of these preconditions so as to confer jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is unsustainable 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 the same being credited into a fund called the “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 posts paid out of that Fund in true spirit and sense must be held to be holders of civil posts under the Ministry of Defence of the Union Government and, therefore, the Tribunal gets 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 order of the Tribunal so as to be interfered with by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

3. 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 of the cadets? From the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment issued to such dhobis, it is crystal clear that the appointment 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 the Regimental Fund. Initially, these dhobis were being paid at a particular rate per cadet on the basis of the actual number of cadets a dhobi is required to serve, but later on, a monthly salary, no doubt, has been fixed for being paid to such dhobis. The terms of appointment, no doubt, vest certain control over such dhobis 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 allowance is put into a fund called the “Regimental Fund” under the management of the 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:

“801. (a) Public funds.—Include all funds which are financed entirely from public money, the unexpended balances of which are refundable to the Government in the event of not being devoted to the objects for which granted, and also

(i) unissued pay and allowances;

(ii) office allowance fund; and

(iii) the estates of deceased men and deserters.”

4. Para 801(b) defines “Regimental Fund” to mean comprising all funds, other than public funds, maintained by a unit.

5. Para 820 provides for administration of such Regimental Fund and para 820(a) clearly indicates that all funds other than public funds as defined in para 801 maintained by a unit, which are financed either wholly or partly from public money. The 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 and for the benefit of the personnel or unit as a whole.

6. 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 a public fund by any stretch of imagination and the dhobis paid out of such Fund cannot be held to be holders of civil posts within the Ministry of Defence so as to confer jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to issue directions 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 posts is made from out of the Consolidated Fund of India or of any public fund under the control of the Ministry of Defence.

7. 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, 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.