JUDGMENT : MATHUR, J. 1. These instant writ petitions involve identical ontroversy and are hereby disposed of by this common order. The petitioners/applicants are assailing the validity and correctness of orders dated 19.07.2019 & 22.07.2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, whereby the following Original Applications were dismissed:- S.I. Nos. Original Application and Misc. Application Nos. 1. O.A. No.290/00440/2014 2. O.A. No.290/00441/2014 3. O.A. No.290/00442/2014 4. O.A. No.290/00444/2014 5. O.A. No.290/00509/2016 with MA No.290/00334/2016 6. O.A. No.290/00510/2016 with MA No.290/00335/2016 2. The OAs were filed by petitioners/applicants against impugned order dated 16.08.2014 terminating their contractual services. 3. In these writ petitions, it is pleaded that petitioners/applicants were appointed on the post of Safaiwala in respondent department vide order dated 01.10.2007. The appointments were made purely on contractual basis for a fixed term of 11 months. The contract was renewed from time to time. However, the contract was not renewed beyond 31.08.2014, for making future contractual appointments through service agencies. It was further pleaded that the retrenchment from services was without adhering to the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus, not tenable in the eyes of law. The Original Applications were filed by the aggrieved petitioners/applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur seeking directions to quash the termination order dated 16.08.2014 with reinstatement in services along with consequential benefits. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 19.07.2019 dismissed the Original Applications holding that the applicants are not holders of ‘civil post’, therefore, not amenable to its jurisdiction. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pleaded that according to Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1985), the Tribunal can only adjudicate matters enumerated, i.e. pertaining to recruitment and service disputes of the employees holding post under the Union. The petitioners/applicants were not engaged against any sanctioned post under the Union of India. On the contrary, they were engaged as Safaiwala, on a contractual basis and were paid wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, from the Corpus Fund provided by the Army Group Insurance (AGIF) to the Military Hospital, Jodhpur. An order dated 25.01.2014 was issued by the Army Group Insurance (AGIF) to hire for services on the post of Safaiwala through the placement agency. Consequently, the petitioners/applicants were informed vide order dated 16.08.2014 that their contract will be discontinued w.e.f. 31.08.2014. 5. An order dated 25.01.2014 was issued by the Army Group Insurance (AGIF) to hire for services on the post of Safaiwala through the placement agency. Consequently, the petitioners/applicants were informed vide order dated 16.08.2014 that their contract will be discontinued w.e.f. 31.08.2014. 5. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide matter pertaining to contractual employees working in central departments. The Army Group Insurance Fund (hereinafter referred to as ‘AGIF’) and is registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (was established with the approval of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India). The object of AGIF is to cater to the socio-economic needs of army personnel and their families by providing insurance cover. The AGIF is controlled by the army officials. Learned counsel, cited before us a judgment passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 3850/2010 Sagrika Singh vs. Union of India contending that AGIF being an ‘authority’ within the meaning of ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is ‘State’. Therefore, the employees working in connection with the affairs of AGIF are holders of ‘civil posts’ and the Tribunal under section 14 of the Act of 1985, has the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide service matters pertaining to employees working in proximity with AGIF. 6. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioners further contended that the petitioners/applicants were recruited on the post of ‘Safaiwala’ vide order dated 30.09.2006 and had been working uninterruptedly till the issuance of order of termination dated 16.08.2014. The termination of their services to make fresh appointments though placement agencies is not only violative of principles of natural justice but also against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support of aforesaid contention, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3488-89 of 1992 (Union of India & Ors. v. Deep Chand Pandey & Ors. Reported in AIR 1993 SC 382 ). The counsel representing the petitioners/applicants implored the Court to accept the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. v. Deep Chand Pandey & Ors. Reported in AIR 1993 SC 382 ). The counsel representing the petitioners/applicants implored the Court to accept the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently urged that under section 14 of the Act of 1985, only service matters of civil servants, as defined under section 2 of the Act can be redressed and adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal. The petitioners/applicants were engaged on contractual basis as Safaiwala and were paid wages as per Minimum Wages Act, from the corpus fund provided by the AGIF. The contractual employment of the petitioners/applicants was discontinued after receipt of letter dated 25.03.2014 by AGIF, directing future engagement of Safaiwalas through placement agencies by executing an agreement with them. Learned counsel representing the respondents, submitted that the employees working under the aegis of AGIF are not holders of ‘civil post’ within the ambit of section 14 of the Act of 1985. Therefore, the learned tribunal rightly declined to entertain the Original Applications. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of (R.R. Pillai (Dead), through Lrs v. Commanding Officer, Headquarters Southern Air Command (U) and Others) reported in (2009)13 SCC 311 and (Union of India v. Chotelal and Others) (1999) 1 SCC 554 . 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. The Armed forces on 01.01.1976 constituted a Society known as Army Group Insurance Fund and registered the same under the Society’s Registration Act, 1908. The Army Group Insurance Fund Rules were notified in the year 1982. The object of AGIF was to cater to the socio economic needs of the Army personnel and their families by providing them an insurance cover. In the year 1984, the AGIF bye laws were notified. Every army personnel has to compulsorily become a member of the AGIF and subscription to the fund is deducted from the pay and allowances of the army personnel. AGIF is subject to Governmental control in the matter of revision of rates of subscription to the fund. The Government has no share capital fund. The AGIF is not a public fund. 11. AGIF is subject to Governmental control in the matter of revision of rates of subscription to the fund. The Government has no share capital fund. The AGIF is not a public fund. 11. There is no dispute on the issue that minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act were paid to the petitioner/applicants from the corpus fund provided by the Army Group Insurance to the Military Hospital Jodhpur. A sum of Rs. 40 Lac were allotted by the AGIF to the Military Hospital, Jodhpur and the interest earned thereupon is being utilized for maintenance and improvement of services of the Military Hospital, Jodhpur. The petitioners/applicants were provided appointment on contractual basis on consolidated salary generated from the interest of corpus fund provided to the Military Hospital, Jodhpur, by AGIF. They were not appointed on sanctioned posts in connection with the affairs of Union of India. Thus, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that petitioners/applicants were not holders of ‘civil posts’ within the Union of India. 12. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant does not deal with the question as to whether the contractual employees receiving salary/remuneration from the interest of AGIF are holder of civil post within the meaning of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1955. 13. In the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents, it has been held that the employees receiving salary/ remuneration from regimental fund and profits generated from Unit Run Canteens (URCs) of the Armed forces are not holders of civil post therefore the CAT does not have jurisdiction to decide dispute pertaining to service conditions of these employees. 14. Section 14 of the Act of 1985 deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of Central Administrative Tribunal. The Section 14 reads as under:- “14. 14. Section 14 of the Act of 1985 deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of Central Administrative Tribunal. The Section 14 reads as under:- “14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court 39 [***] in relation to— (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian; (b) all service matters concerning— (i) a member of any All-India Service; or (ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or (iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence, and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation 40 [or society] owned or controlled by the Government; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation 40 [or society] or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment. 40 [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to “Union” in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union territory.] (2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations 40 [or societies] owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society] controlled or owned by a State Government: Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this subsection in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations 40 [or societies]. (3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society], all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court 39 [***]) in relation to— (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society]; and (b) all service matters concerning a person [other than a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)] appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society] and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs.” 15. Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 clearly envisages that Central Administrative Tribunal would exercise jurisdiction in relation to the recruitment and matters concerning recruitment, to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or any defence service, being, in either case a post filled by civilian. We have already held in preceding paras that petitioners/applicants were not holding civil posts under the Union of India. We have already held in preceding paras that petitioners/applicants were not holding civil posts under the Union of India. Therefore, qua their service disputes, the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 were not attracted. Consequently, learned Tribunal rightly held that it did not have the jurisdiction to decide the disputes concerning service matters of the holders of such posts. The impugned orders dated 19.07.2019 & 22.07.2019 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality whatsoever warranting interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of above, all these writ petitions are dismissed. 17. No order as to cost.