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. Moreover, in view of the judgment of this Court in Union of India [Railway Board] & Ors. Vs. J.V. Subhaiah & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 258, the employees of a co-operative society are not employees of the Government.

                                                       REPORTABLE

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007



UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                         Appellant (s)

                              VERSUS

RAM SINGH THAKUR & ORS.                       Respondent(s)
                                  WITH

                   Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

                             O  R  D  E  R

Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2007

      Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

      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

dated   15.09.2003   as   well   as   in   the   order   of   the   Central

Administrative   Tribunal   dated   30.05.2001   and   hence   we   are

repeating the same here.

      The   respondents   were   employees   of   a   co-operative

society  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

                                     :1:


CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007 & Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007




similarly  placed employees  of other  co-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.

      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   SCC   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.

      Moreover,   in   view   of   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in

Union of India [Railway Board] & Ors.  Vs.  J.V. Subhaiah &

Ors.    (1996)     2   SCC   258,   the   employees   of   a   co-operative

society are not employees of the Government.

      In   our   opinion,   the   direction   to   frame   a   scheme   for

appointment   can   only   be   given   by   the   Executive   (and   that

too   according   to   Article   16   and   other   provisions   of   the

Constitution).

                                      :2:


CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007 & Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007

     For the reasons stated above, the Appeal stands allowed

and the impugned judgments of the High Court as well as the

order of the Tribunal are set aside.  No costs.




Civil Appeal No. 1197 of 2007

     Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

     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   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   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

service is a purely executive function and such a direction

cannot validly be given by the judiciary.  

                              :3:


CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 200 OF 2007 & Civil Appeal NO. 1197 of 2007




      Consequently, this Appeal stands allowed. The impugned

judgment   as   well   as   the   judgment   of   the   Tribunal   are   set

aside.  No costs.




                                      ..........................J.
                                      (MARKANDEY KATJU)




NEW DELHI;                            ..........................J.
JULY 14, 2011                         (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

                               :4: