Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus RAM SINGH THAKUR & ORS.

Decided
14 July 2011
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, C.K. PRASAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 242 · 2011 INSC 493
Also cited as
  • AIR 2012 SCW 3806 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2007 Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

p. 243, margin G

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.

p. 244, margin A

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 not repeating the same here.

p. 244, margin A

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

p. 244, margin B

respondents and similarly placed employees of other cooperative 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.

p. 244, margin C

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 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.

p. 244, margin E

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.

p. 244, margin G

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).

p. 245, margin A

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.

p. 245, margin A

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.

p. 245, margin C

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.

p. 245, margin C

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.

p. 245, margin C

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.

p. 245, margin F

Consequently, this Appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Tribunal are set aside. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 245, margin F