Judgment:
1. This application is filed seeking direction to the respondents to treat the applicant regular employee of I Corps Shopping Complex, which has been renamed as Striking Shopping Complex and for payment of salary etc. The applicant has stated that the shopping complex was started in the year 1979 by the name of Defence Shopping Center which was renamed in 1986 to A.W.W.A (Army Wife Welfare Association) Shopping Complex in the year 1998-99 was registered as a society and then change the name as corps shopping complex. Again it was changed /renamed to strike shopping complex. The said shopping complex came into existence for the benefit of the Army Officers and Army Personnel to unable to the purchaser cheap and quality products at their units and further stated that it is controlled by the Defence Authorities and the applicant was appointed as an Accountant on 14.03.1984 in the said society and he was worked continuously in the said post without any break whatsoever for the last 16 years and accordingly his salary was also paid while he was in service. There was an agreement, which governs the service conditions of the applicant by which the employment of the applicant as a time bound contractual employment giving no benefit of his past services. Therefore, the applicant made a representation to the respondents for regularization of his services by the respondents. The applicant further made a representation to the respondents bringing to their notice that his continuous service is not temporary service and he was a regular employee of the association and, therefore, stated that the action of the respondents in terminating the service of the applicant is illegal, arbitrary, exercise of power and sought for the aforesaid reliefs.
2. On notice the respondents have appeared and filed the Counter Affidavit denying the contentions of the applicant. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that A.W.W.C. is an autonomous charitable organization created with an aim of supporting and enhancing the official welfare efforts within the Army, focusing especially on the welfare of families, children and widows of all ranks and retired personnel with various objections. The wives of all army officers posted at Mathura Station are members of AWWA. Since the AWWA aims are supporting and enhancing the welfare efforts of the families in the Army Unit Station for its day-to-day functions. The Shopping Complex is a part of shopping center which is in existence for catering the needs of the members of the family and the funds generated are exclusively used for the welfare of serving soldiers, separated families and ex serviceman and as such stated it is not an integrants part of the Armed forces and its control rests with the Major General at HQ I Corps. The society at liberty to adopt terms and conditions applicable to the employees of the society and the employment provided to the applicant is purely on temporary basis under the terms and conditions of the association/society and the post in which the applicant worked is within the control of the association itself and as such the applicant is not entitled for regularization of his services. For this reason sought for dismissal of the Original Application. The applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterated the same conditions which was argued in the Original Application for that the respondents have filed the supplementary counter affidavit supporting the same contentions which are argued in the counter affidavit and denying the contentions of the applicant.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the pleadings and materials on record. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the material produced by the applicant itself clearly goes to show that the applicant was employed in the association, which was registered under the Act. The said association is formed for the welfare of the members of the Army unit and, therefore, it is not come within the purview of the control of the department and as such the applicant service which he has rendered in the society that by itself will not create a right for regularization as the same was done on the contractual basis in the absence of any regular recruitment for the said post. The applicant himself has produced the material to show that the association in which he has worked is formed for the welfare of group of people under their guidance and control the service of the applicant was taken and subsequently terminated. As contended by the respondents that the applicant status as an employee is not disputed but the working of the applicant is under the control of the association, which is not, formed part and partial of the Defence Department and, therefore, the applicant has no enforceable right seeking regularization of his service against the respondents. This contention of the applicant based on the documents produced and materials produced on record is acceptable one and, therefore, the applicant cannot seek the reliefs as sought for in view of the admitted facts as he has no material to support for claiming for the regularization on his own showing it is only a temporary nature contract under the society.
4. In view of the forgoing reasons this original application does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.