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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Suffice it to say, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd January, 1991, aforesaid, holding that the petitioner was not a servant of Union Government. The appropriate remedy to raise grievance against the order of the Tribunal, was to approach the Honble Supreme Court in appeal. Obviously, this remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner. Thus, the plea of the learned counsel that the petitioner is a servant of Union Government is not tenable. 8. Then, the question arises whose servant the petitioner was ? Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to give any satisfactory answer to the question. 9. Obviously, this remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner. Thus, the plea of the learned counsel that the petitioner is a servant of Union Government is not tenable. 8. Then, the question arises whose servant the petitioner was ? Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to give any satisfactory answer to the question. 9. The position that emerges from the averments made in the counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit is that the canteen wherein the peti tioner was provided employment is run by Soldiers under the Soldiers Welfare Scheme ; that it is informally supervised by some serving Army Officer ; and that the status of the canteen, which appears to be the employer of the petitioner, was not that of a State or of any of its instru mentality whose action may be amenable to jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In nutshell, the nature and status of employment of the petitioner was that of a domestic employment, an area which is beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and this court would not be legally justified in intervening in the matter relating thereto. 10. In the result, the petition fails, and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .