- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri N. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the peti tioner and Sri A. K. Gupta, learned Addl. Standing Counsel of the Central Government, representing the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner was serving in the Indian Army and retired in the year 1983. After his retirement the petitioner secured employment in Regimental Canteen, C. O. D. , Chheoki at Allahabad. By means of an order dated 17th December, 1990 the Officer-Incharge of the Canteen purported to terminate the employment of the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the perusal of Annexure-IV to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner it transpires that before approaching this court the peti tioner had approached to a Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad, under Section 19 of the Administrate Tribunals Act, 1985, for quashing the order dated 17th December, 1990.
(3.) THE Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the petitioner was a canteen employee ; and that he was not a servant of Union Government. THErefore, it rejected the petition of the petitioner at the admission stage itself by its order dated 3rd January, 1991 holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the controversy. Before this Court, Sri Pandey maintains that the petitioner is a servant of the Union Government and the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion as it did.;