2025:UHC:10369 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 770/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Monoj Kumar, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the respondents. (2) Petitioner was engaged as Billing Clerk in Unit Run Canteen of Indian Army at Almora in the year 2014. Her engagement was, however, terminated vide order dated 8.3.2024. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging her termination. (3) Petitioner relies upon Clause 6 of the Guidelines issued by Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) on 11.8.2014 (CA-5 to counter affidavit). Clause 6 of the said guidelines is extracted below: “6. Classification/Recruitment of Employees. All employees shall be classified as under probation during their first year of service. On successful completion of one year of probation, they shall be termed as temporary employees till five years of service (including the period of probation). On successful completion of five years of service, they shall be termed as regular employees up to the age of superannuation or up to the date of resignation/termination of service. The employees shall remain on probation or temporary employees unless they are communicated in writing about their status as regular. The initial recruitment of employees will be done based on qualitative requirements (QRs) formulated by respective URC Management through a Board of Officers. Employees subsequently confirmed as regular, if they meet the terms, conditions and QR as formulated by the URC Management through a Board of Officers.” 2025:UHC:10369 (4) Based on the said guidelines, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner remained on probation for initial one year and thereafter her status was upgraded to that of a temporary employee and upon completion of five years as temporary employee, petitioner became a regular employee, therefore she could not have been terminated, treating her to be a contract employee. (5) Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that employees of Unit Run Canteens (URC) are not government employees. He refers to para 16 of the counter affidavit, filed by Amandeep Singh on behalf of the respondents, which is extracted below: “16. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 7 of the Writ Petition it is stated that based on letter of Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) being letter No. 96029/Q/DDGCS dated 11 August 2014, guidelines, terms and condition are applicable to regular civilian employee, not to casual/contractual/temporary employee. Individual was never communicated in writing by any means for engagement of her services as regular service/employment. A true copy of Guidelines dated 11 August 2014 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-5 to this affidavit.” (6) Mr. Manoj Kumar refers to para 2 and 3 of the covering letter, issued with the guidelines on 11.8.2014, which reads as under: “2. The existing terms and conditions as laid down for the URC employees were consequent to the judgment made by the Hon’ble 2025:UHC:10369 Supreme Court on 04 Jan 2001 while disposing the case of Union of India and Ors Vs M Aslam and Ors. However, consequent to the decision made by three member bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28 Apr 2009 while disposing of the case of RR Pillai Vs Commanding Officer HQ SAC(U) and Ors, it has been ruled that the URC employees are not Government employees by any stretch of imagination. As such the terms and conditions of employment of URC employees issued earlier vide this Dte letter No 96029/Q/DDGCS dated 28 Apr 2003 stand annulled.” 3. Apropos, Guidelines For Terms and Conditions of Service of Civilian Employees and Revised Pay Scales of Unit Run Canteens paid out of Non Public Funds are forwarded herewith. Fmns/URCs will formulate their own SOPs on terms and conditions based on the parameters given in these Guidelines. The pay scales will be applied within the given pay scale parameters as per the financial viability/health of the URC.” (7) This Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of respondents. Since guidelines, relied upon by the petitioners, are applicable only to regular employees, while petitioner was engaged on contract in a Unit Run Canteen, therefore, reliance upon the guidelines dated 11.8.2014 by the petitioner is misplaced. Thus there is no scope for interference with the termination order. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent authority for her reengagement, if work and post is available in the canteen. The representation, if made by her, shall be decided sympathetically, as early as possible. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.11.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.21 11:33:56 +05'30' 2025:UHC:10369