Shaziya M K vs DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

A short question as to whether an employee appointed by direct recruitment under the Lakshadweep Administration, for the discharge of its functions can be considered as an “officer of the Central Government” arises for consideration in this OA.

2. The short facts leading to the above question can be summarized as follows:

The applicant was appointed through direct recruitment as an Upper Division Clerk under the Lakshadweep Administration on 16.2.2008. She was continuously serving under the Lakshadweep Administration thereafter. While so, Central Institute of Fisheries

Nautical and Engineering Training (CIFNET) under the administrative control of Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India issued Annexure A1 recruitment notice inviting applications for appointment by deputation to 3 posts of Upper Division Clerk under the 2nd respondent, from among the “officers of Central Government”. Simultaneously 2nd respondent also issued Annexure A2 communication dated 2.4.2006 addressed to the various Ministries/Departments of Government of India inviting applications for appointment by deputation to the said posts. The applicant claiming that she is a regularly appointed Upper Division Clerk under the Lakshadweep Administration and possessing the requisite qualifications, submitted Annexure A3 application dated 1.6.2026. It was duly processed and forwarded by the competent authority in the Lakshadweep Administration.

3. According to the applicant, doubts arose among the authorities as to whether “officers of Central Government” occurring in the Annexure A4 Recruitment Rules and Annexures A1 and A2 includes eligible employees of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration also.

4. Apprehending that her application may not hence be processed, she has approached this Tribunal seeking a declaration that the applicant being an employee of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of a Union Territory is eligible to be considered as an “officer/employee of the Central Government” for the purpose of appointment on deputation to the post of Upper Division Clerk pursuant to Annexures A1 and A2 and in terms of Annexure A4 Recruitment Rules. Incidental reliefs were also sought.

5. The respondents appeared and contended that the claim of the applicant that she is an officer of the Central Government is not legally sustainable and hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed as non- sustainable. Accordingly, the question of maintainability was heard as a preliminary issue.

6. Heard both sides and examined the records.

7. The contention of the applicant is that the expression “officers of Central Government” occurring in Annexure A4 Recruitment Rules and Annexures A1 and A2 includes employees of the Union Territory of

Lakshadweep Administration also. Lakshadweep is a Union Territory administered by the President of India through an Administrator appointed under Article 239 of the Constitution of India. Hence, officers and employees of the Lakshadweep Administration holds civil post in connection with the affairs of the Union of India. It was contended that Lakshadweep is directly administered by the President of India in terms of Article 239 of the Constitution. Thus, Constitutionally the administration of Lakshadweep is an administration carried on by the President, through an Administrator and cannot be equated with the administration of the State Government. It was further contended that Section 3(8)(b)(iii) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that in relation to the administration of a Union Territory, the expression “Central Government” includes “the Administrator thereof, acting within the scope of authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution”. To buttress the above contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Tribunal in R. Sadasivan Nair v. Union of India (OA No. 683 of 2017) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bency John v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. (2026 INSC 562).

8. Part I of the Constitution of India refers to the Union and its territories. Article 1(iii) provides that the territory of India shall comprise (a) the territory of the States and (b) Union territories specified in First Schedule at Part II. Part XIV of the Constitution of India deals with services under the Union and the States. Chapter I deals with the services under the Union or State. Clearly a distinction is made between the recruitment and conditions of service of employees serving in the Union and that of a State. However, the term Union territory is conspicuously absent therein. On the other hand, Part VIII of Chapter I of the Constitution specifically refers to the Union Territories. Administration of Union Territory is governed by Article 239 of the Constitution of India. It provides that “save as otherwise provided by the Parliament by law, every Union Territory shall be administered by the President, acting to such extent as he things fit, through an Administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify”. Article 240 of the Constitution empowers the President to make Regulations for peace, progress and good governance of the Union Territory. This provision clearly indicates that though the administration of the Union Territory is done by the President of India acting through the Administrator, it does not in any manner lead to an inference that employees engaged by the Union Territory attain the status of officers of the Central Government. Article 309 of the Constitution of India referring to the services under the Union or States, states that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of appropriate legislature may regulate the recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or States. Conspicuously the term Union Territory is also absent therein.

9. Various Rules promulgated under the Article 309 of the Constitution of India relating to the affairs of the Union show that they cover the persons engaged by the Union of India or services of employees under the State placed at the disposal of Union Government. Typically, the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 defines the ‘Government servant’ as a person who is a member of a service or holds a civil post under the Union and such persons on foreign service or member of a service or holds post under State or that of a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Union Government. Clearly this provision, read along with other provisions do not refer to the members of the Union Territories, either by reference or by necessary implication. It is also clear that the employees of the Central Government and the State Governments are governed by the subordinate legislations promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution.

10. All the services under the Lakshadweep Administration are governed by separate Regulations or Recruitment Rules promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution by the Administrator, in exercise of his powers under Article 239 of the Constitution of India. Merely because various Central Government Regulations/provisions regarding terms of employment, conditions of services, pay and pay fixation are adopted to the Union Territory by specific provisions, that does not by itself indicate that they are the officers of the Central Government.

11. Section 3(8)(b)(iii) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant does not have any reference to the facts of the case. Section 3(8)(b) refers to the term “President” and indicates that in relation to anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution meaning the President and shall include, under sub clause (iii), an Administrator in exercise of his powers under Article 239 of the Constitution. That also indicates that the term

President, in that context, broadly includes Administrator also. That does not indicate that the employees appointed by the Administrator in exercise of his powers under Article 239, becomes the employees of the Central Government.

12. On a reference to the nature and function of the Union Territory employees, it is evident that Central Government have no direct administrative control over the employees of Union Territory who serve under the affairs and administration of the Union Territory rather than being the regular civil employees of the civil Ministries or Department. It is also to be noted that various circulars/guidelines issued by the DoP&T explicitly exclude employees of the Union Territories. Though various benefits of the Central Government have been historically extended to the employees of the Union Territory, that by itself does not elevate them to the status of an employee of the Union Territory.

13. In R. Sadasivan Nair’s case (supra) the claim for benefit under the CGHS was sought to be extended to the employees in the Union Territory also. Referring to Articles 239 and 240 of the Constitution of India and also a reply given under the Right to Information Act, it was held that the

status of employees of Union Territory was as that of a Central Government employee. Article 239(1) provides that every Union Territory shall be administered by the President through an administrator. Under Article 240, President is empowered to make regulations for peace, progress and good governance of Union Territory of Lakshadweep. In a reply given to an applicant under the RTI Act, it was indicated that the status of UT administration employees was that of Central Government employees. The conclusions arrived in the above OA, relying on the materials, seems to be based on a wrong understanding of the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant laws.

14. The learned counsel for the applicant further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Bency John’s case (supra). The question involved was whether a Railway employee was an employee under the Government. After a detailed evaluation of the Statutes, it was held that Railway servant is a Government servant, though not governed by CCS (CCA) Rules and CCS (Conduct) Rules. This decision does not apply to the facts of this case since Railway servant is admittedly an employee engaged under the Ministry of Railways of the Union Government.

15. The question whether an employee is a Central Government employee should be determined on the basis whether he is recruited and appointed by the Central Government and whether he is governed by the Rules applicable to the Central Government employees. The very fact that applicant was recruited by the Lakshadweep Administration, militates against his claim, that he is an employee/officer under the Central Government. They are also not covered by the provisions of Central Civil Services Rules.

16. Having held so, we are inclined to hold that there is nothing to show that the applicant is an employee under the Central Government. This finding does not make the OA not maintainable. However, we feel that since the relief sought cannot be granted the OA is dismissed. No costs.

(V. RAMA MATHEW)

(JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

“SA”

Original Application No. 181/00429/2026

APPLICANT’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 – True copy of the said Recruitment Notice bearing F. No. 13-16/2024-Adm., dated 2.4.2026 issued by the second respondent.

Annexure A2 – True copy of the notification bearing F. No. 13- 16/2024-Adm., dated 2.4.2026 issued by the second respondent.

Annexure A3 – True copy of the communication bearing F. No. A- 35018/1/2026-Estt-GAP/196 dated 1.6.2026 issued b y the third respondent.

Annexure A4 – True copy of the Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering Training, Kochi, Upper Division Clerk Recruitment Rules, 2011.

Annexure A5 – True copy of the representation dated 3.8.2026 submitted before the 2nd respondent.

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES

Nil

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-