JUDGMENT : Ajit Bothakur, J. Heard Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Maj. Pawandeep Singh for the respondent/Union of India. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned common judgment and order, dated 13.08.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5186/2014 and WP(C) No.3123/2018. 3. The appellant's case, in a nut-shell, is that the appellant is a registered Trade Union of Civilian Workers of General Military Farms established in the year 1989 at Missamari, Tezpur in Sonitpur district of Assam and engaged in supply of quality milk and milk products to meet defence requirements. There are five commands of Military Farms in India manned by more than 1000 regular and 5000 of other categories of employees. In 1993, the Joint Parliamentary Consultancy Committee recommended for strengthening of Military Farms and accordingly, in 2004, the Government of India decided to expand its infrastructural development. However, the ministry of Defence has been keeping 90% of its regular posts not filled by substantive appointment for many years and works of dairy are being carried out by engaging temporary employees and further, the department of Defence instead of making proper infrastructural development has been purchasing the additional requirements of milk and milk products from the open market. 4. The appellant has contended that on 12.05.2004, the Ministry of Defence, Government of India issued clarifications, inter-alia, that fresh milk in areas, where Military farms are located has to be supplied by the Military Farms and the Tetrapack milk to be procured by the Military units. On 26.06.2013, the Quarter Master General accordingly issued an order informing each command that all Military Farms will be closed in a phased manner as indicated therein. Further, on 25.06.2014, the Deputy Director General, Military Farms issued an order whereby all concerned were informed that the Quarter Master General has directed for shifting of responsibility for supply of milk and milk products from Military Farms to ASC, which would be completed in two phases by 01.10.2014. Further, on 25.06.2014, the Deputy Director General, Military Farms issued an order whereby all concerned were informed that the Quarter Master General has directed for shifting of responsibility for supply of milk and milk products from Military Farms to ASC, which would be completed in two phases by 01.10.2014. The said decision of the authority evoked resentment among the workers of Military Farms, which led to a number of litigations as the same was contrary to the earlier recommendation/decision aforementioned to extend and strengthen the infrastructure of the Military Farms and being violative of the dictum of Articles 21 and 48 of the Constitution of India. 5. The appellant, therefore, filed WP(C) No.5186/2014 challenging the aforesaid decision of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India to close down the Military Dairy Farm and prayed for setting aside and quashing of the order, dated 25.06.2014, and further, to direct the respondents not to take any steps for closing down the military dairy farms. 6. The learned Single Judge, by an interim order, dated 15.10.2014, passed in WP (C) No.5186/2014 directed the respondents to maintain procurement of milk products from the military dairy farms, which, of course, has come to an end with the passing of the order, dated 13.08.2018, impugned herein. 7. The appellant, by filing WP (C) No.3123/2018, prayed for a direction to the respondents not to apply the direction contained in the communication, dated 01.05.2018, made by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, addressed to the Chief of the Army Staff to sell all cattle’s to Central/State Government Departments or State Dairy Cooperatives at the rate of Rs. 1000/- only, per cattle. 8. By the impugned order, dated 13.08.2018, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the policy decision of the Government of India to close down the Military Dairy Farms. However, in the said order, the learned Single Judge observed that the respondents would frame a suitable scheme for a decent and dignified relieve of employment of the temporary employees. 8. By the impugned order, dated 13.08.2018, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the policy decision of the Government of India to close down the Military Dairy Farms. However, in the said order, the learned Single Judge observed that the respondents would frame a suitable scheme for a decent and dignified relieve of employment of the temporary employees. The operative portion of the impugned order reads:- "That being the position and taking an overall view of the matter, while the Curt refrains from interfering with the policy decision to close down the Military Farm, Missamari along with other military farms, Court hopes and trusts that respondents would frame a policy to ensure that the temporary employees are given a decent and dignified farewell commensurate to the number of years of service put in by them". 9. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the order dated 25.06.2014 is in conflict with the decision taken earlier way back in 1993 by the Joint Parliamentary Consultancy Committee recommending strengthening of Military Farms on the basis of which the Government of India had decided to expand its infrastructural developments in the year 2004. He also submitted that the decision to close down Military Farm is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, qua the employees and that the same militates against the directive principles enshrined in Article 48 of the Constitution of India. 10. Per contra, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, assisted by Maj. Pawandeep Singh contends that the decision of the Government of India to close down the Military Dairy Farms including the Farm at Missamari, Tezpur in Sonitpur district of Assam is a matter of policy decision and the permanent employees, who are posted in the said Farm will be adjusted with other Units/establishments under the Ministry of Defence and services of the contractual staff will be terminated by issuing advance notice to their contractors as there is no obligation of the Military Farm department for absorption of such temporary employees. Mr. Keyal informs that pursuant to the said policy decision, the Ministry of Defence has already effected closure of 15 Military Farms out of 39 such farms during the months of August/September, 2017 and the remaining farms will be closed down in a phased manner. 11. Mr. Keyal informs that pursuant to the said policy decision, the Ministry of Defence has already effected closure of 15 Military Farms out of 39 such farms during the months of August/September, 2017 and the remaining farms will be closed down in a phased manner. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 12. The learned Single Judge, in order under challenge had observed as follows:- "14.1. Over the years, there has been significant progress in diary farming resulting in easy availability of milk and milk products in large parts of the country. This, in turn, has reduced the importance of military farming. Though military farms were producing milk it was limited in quantity. The shortfall had to be procured from the National Cooperative of Diary Federation of India (NCDFI). That apart, cost of milk production in the military farms far exceeded the resultant savings due to their establishment cost and hence became uneconomical. In the meanwhile, in tune with the global requirement, it is the endeavour of the Government to have a lean and potent army with reduced "teeth to tail ratio" and in this connection, proposal was made and placed before the Cabinet Committee on Security Affairs for optimizing use of large number of establishments including the military farms, which received the approval of the Cabinet. Thereafter, Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 20.07.2017, cleared the proposal for optimization of a large number of entities including military farms, involving closure of 39 military farms. 14.2. Out of the 39 military farms, 13 farms were taken up in the first phase. Those were closed with cattle transferred to other military farms. Tenga Military farm transferred cattle to Missamari, where the number of cattle is 750. These cattle are now proposed to be disposed of from the military farm at a nominal rate of Rs. 1,000/- per animal to the Government Animal Husbandry Departments of North-Eastern States. It is stated that the establishment cost of 39 military farms would be a saving to the exchequer. That apart, land of the military farms can be used for making up the existing deficiencies and obviating costs of acquisition of land for setting up defence establishments. 14.3. 1,000/- per animal to the Government Animal Husbandry Departments of North-Eastern States. It is stated that the establishment cost of 39 military farms would be a saving to the exchequer. That apart, land of the military farms can be used for making up the existing deficiencies and obviating costs of acquisition of land for setting up defence establishments. 14.3. Basic intention behind the policy decision to close down the military farms is restructuring and right sizing of different establishments in the Indian Army to be completed by December, 2019. 14.4. In so far personnel engaged in military farms are concerned, it has been decided that the permanent employees would be posted out from the respective military farms and adjusted in other units/establishments. In this connection, Director, Military Farms Headquarters will prepare a list of all such employees maintaining their unit-wise seniority. It is for this purpose that the vacancies have not been filled up which is a policy decision taken by the Ministry of Defence. It is contended that there is no contradiction between the decision to enhance productivity of military farms on the one hand and in granting approval for closure of military farms on the other hand. Both the decisions are not connected as the contexts were different. Decision to enhance productivity would be in place till such time the military farms are in existence, whereas, the decision to close down military farms by the Government is a conscious decision taken towards optimization of the army resources and reducing the 'tail' and effecting modernization through resultant savings. It is stated that requirement of milk and milk products in the army will be met through the State Cooperatives and National Cooperative of Diary Federation of India. The cattle from the 39 Military Farms would be disposed of with the State Animal Husbandry Department at a nominal price. Transfer of cattle from military farm is a precursor to closure of military farm initiated due to operational concerns for optimizing restructuring by reducing tail vis-a-vis teeth and for effecting modernization. 15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. Transfer of cattle from military farm is a precursor to closure of military farm initiated due to operational concerns for optimizing restructuring by reducing tail vis-a-vis teeth and for effecting modernization. 15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. In the course of hearing, Mr Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has placed before the Court a copy of order dated 08.09.2017 passed in WP(C) No.5430 of 2017 to contend that similar prayer made by casual labourers working under the contractors has been dismissed by the Court. 16. In a case of this nature, where a conscious decision has been taken by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India to close down the military farms in existence (39 in all), which undoubtedly is a policy decision, interference by the Court may not be justified. How the resources of the armed forces are to be optimized and how best to utilize those resources are within the realm of military administration as well as that of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Invoking the directive principles under Article 48 would be too farfetched a proposition to justify interdiction with such policy decision of the Government. To that extent, Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. In so far the civilian employees engaged in the military farms are concerned, it is the stand of the respondents that those who are in regular employment their services would be retained after adjusting them in different units and establishments. In so far casual labourers/employees working through the contractors are concerned, this Court has already turned down the prayer of such labourers." 13. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in WP(C) No.3123/2018, it was pleaded that a proposal was made before the Cabinet Committee on Security for optimizing a large number of establishments including the Military Farms. Accordingly, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence by its letter dated 20.07.2017 had cleared the proposal for optimization of a large number of entities including 39 Military Firms. In the said affidavit filed, it is also stated that the policy decision taken by the Cabinet Committee on Security for optimization by the Government of India on 14.07.2017. Accordingly, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence by its letter dated 20.07.2017 had cleared the proposal for optimization of a large number of entities including 39 Military Firms. In the said affidavit filed, it is also stated that the policy decision taken by the Cabinet Committee on Security for optimization by the Government of India on 14.07.2017. However, the appellant did not challenge the aforesaid policy decision of the Government of India but only prayed in WP(C) No.3123/2018 not to make the communication dated 01.05.2018 of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defene applicable to the Military Farms at any summary. By the communication dated 01.05.2018, the Government of India had taken a decision to transfer Military Farms cattle to Central/State Government. 14. To a pointed query of the Court, Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did not file any counter affidavit to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents in WP(C) No.5186/2014. 15. Needless to say that a policy decision of the Government is not open to judicial review unless it is shown to be arbitrary and discriminatory against the public policy. At the cost of repetition, aforesaid policy decision of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India was not put to challenge by the writ petitioners. 16. On consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, we find no good ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.