Government servant status for canteen employees confirmed, but full parity in service benefits depended on applicable service rules.

Employees of Unit-Run Canteens were treated as Government servants for jurisdictional purposes because the canteens operated under Defence control, with recruitment, supervision and discipline integrated into the establishment; the Central Administrative Tribunal could therefore entertain their applications. However, that status did not confer automatic parity with regular Government servants for every service benefit. As the applicable service rules and administrative instructions did not adopt the Fundamental Rules for these employees, directions granting full regular benefits and review of subsistence allowance under those Rules were unsustainable. The minimum of the regular pay scale was nevertheless upheld, and the status and jurisdiction finding was affirmed while full service parity was curtailed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the employees of Unit-Run Canteens are Government servants and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain their applications. (ii) Whether such employees are entitled to all service benefits of regular Government servants, including retiral benefits and review of subsistence allowance under the Fundamental Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the employees of Unit-Run Canteens are Government servants and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain their applications.

Analysis: The canteen system in the Defence Services was examined in the light of the mode of appointment, service rules, source of funding, and the extent of control exercised by the Defence authorities. The Unit-Run Canteens functioned as retail outlets serving Defence personnel and operated under a structured set of rules with pervasive supervisory and disciplinary control by the Defence establishment. Applying the principles governing canteens that form part of an establishment, the Court held that the employees were recruited, controlled and supervised under the Defence framework and that the relationship of master and servant existed.

Conclusion: The employees of Unit-Run Canteens are Government servants and the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain their applications.

Issue (ii): Whether such employees are entitled to all service benefits of regular Government servants, including retiral benefits and review of subsistence allowance under the Fundamental Rules.

Analysis: The status of the employees as Government servants did not automatically place them on the same footing as regular Government servants for every service benefit. Their service conditions depended on the applicable rules and administrative instructions, and the employer had not adopted the Fundamental Rules for these employees. Therefore, the directions granting all regular benefits and requiring review of subsistence allowance under the Fundamental Rules could not be sustained in full.

Conclusion: The directions granting all service benefits and review under the Fundamental Rules were set aside, while the entitlement to the minimum of the regular pay scale was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part and dismissed in part, with the Tribunal's finding on status and jurisdiction affirmed but its directions extending full regular Government-service benefits curtailed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where canteen employees are engaged in an institutionally controlled canteen that functions as an integral part of the establishment under pervasive managerial and disciplinary supervision, they may be treated as Government servants for jurisdictional purposes, but full parity with regular Government employees depends on the governing service rules and cannot be assumed merely from that status.

---