Judgment:
(With C.A. No. 3133 /2007 @ SLP (C) No.1961 of 2003) Civil Appeal No.
5354 of 2000 and WP(C) No.596 of 2000)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
- Leave granted in SLP (C) No.1961 of 2003
2. In the appeal relating to SLP (C) No.1961 of 2003
challenge is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.702 of 2000. Civil
Appeal No. 5353 of 2000 is directed against the judgment of
the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Letters Patent Appeal
filed by the Union of India. Civil Appeal No.5354 of 2000 is
filed by one R.K. Dua who was not a party in the Letters
Patent Appeal before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.
Writ Petition No.596 of 2000 also involves the similar dispute.
3. The controversy relates to the interpretation of Rule 8(b)
of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short the
'Rules'). According to the Union of India, the Short Service
Commissioned Officers (in short 'SSCOs') are not eligible to get
their past service in Army counted in the Central Reserve
Police Force (in short 'CRPF') for determining seniority,
whereas according to the SSCOs the seniority is required to be
determined after considering the unbroken service in the
Armed Forces. While the SSCOs placed strong reliance on the
decision of this Court dated 21.1.1986 in P.G. Shetty and Ors.
v. Union of India upholding the decision of the Delhi High
Court (UBS Teotia and Ors v. Union of India), the Union of
India placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ravi Paul
and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1995 (3) SCC 300)4. The Delhi High Court has held that the SSCOs are not
entitled to the benefit of past service in Army while the Jammu
and Kashmir High Court has held otherwise.
5. At this juncture, in order to appreciate the rival
submissions it is to be noted that there are some factual
aspects which need to be noted. The SSCOs were appointed as
Emergency Commissioned Officers on short service in the
Army. They were offered appointments in the CRPF. In the
offer of appointment in respect of appellant Nos. 4, 7, 10 and
11 before the Delhi High Court in LPA, the following terms are
relevant:
"4. The other terms of appointment will
be as follows:
(i) You are being appointed as direct
officer under rule 105(4)(iv) and
shall not be entitled to reckon your
Army Service towards seniority in
the CRPF except pay fixation in one
increment for each completed year's
commissioned service."
6. In R.C. Sahi & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1999
(1) SCC 482) it was observed as follows:
"17. In view of the above observations, it is
clear that in the absence of a provision to give
benefit of the past service in army service to the
ECOs in the main Rule, the Executive Instructions
are permissible and the Executive Instructions
dated 5.7.1972 were issued to achieve that object.
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned counsel could not
seriously contend that if the Executive Instructions
of 5.7.1972 are to be applied and the past army
service of the ECOs is added, the private
respondents will be senior to the petitioners. It is
the specific case of respondents 1 and 2 that the
impugned seniority list was prepared on the basis of
the Executive Instructions dated 5.7.1972.
Therefore, there is no room for doubt that the
seniority list now prepared by respondents 1 and 2
is quite in accordance with law and in compliance
with the directions of this Court in Sahi's case."
In Ravi Paul's case (supra) it was observed as follows:
"22. It would thus appear that Rule 8(b)(i) of
the CRPF Rules only governs the seniority as
between Army Officers inter se, Army Officers and
re-employed Army Officers inter se, Indian Police
Service Officers inter se, and non-Army and Army
Officers of equivalent rank inter se. The expression
'rank' in this rule means the rank in CRPF. There is
nothing in Rule 8(b) to indicate that the earlier
Army service of an Army Officer or a re-employed
Army Officer is to be counted for the purpose of
seniority in CRPF. Since Rule 8(b)(i) is silent in this
regard executive instructions can be issued by the
Central Government for the purpose of giving
benefit of Army service to Army Officers or re-employed Army Officers. With that end in view the
Government of India, in its letter dated 5-7-1972
addressed to the Director General BSF and CRPF as
well as IG (ITBP) and Secretary (Home), Arunachal
Pradesh Administration, has laid down certain
principles for the purpose of fixation of seniority of
ex-ECOs appointed in the BSF, CRPF, ITBP and
Assam Rifles.
The said principles were, however,
applicable only to ex-ECOs who were
absorbed/appointed in these forces during the
period 1967 to 1970. In U.B.S. Teotia v. Union of
India (supra) the Delhi High Court has construed
Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules to mean that Army
Officers who are re-employed or Army Officers who
come on deputation have to retain their original
seniority and will get the benefit of their Army
service. We are unable to read Rule 8 as having
such an effect. In our opinion, the said rule when it
says that "an Army Officer shall maintain his
seniority as between Army Officers within a
particular rank and an Army 0fficer re-employed in
the Central Reserve Police Force shall maintain his
Army Service between Army Officers within a
particular rank" only means that amongst Army
Officers inter se and a re-employed Army Officer
and an Army Officer inter se their seniority to a
particular rank in the CRPF would be fixed on the
basis of their seniority in the Army. We have not
found any provision in Rule 8(b) which enables an
Army Officer or a re-employed Army Officer to count
his Army service for the purpose of seniority in the
CRPF. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the
decision of Delhi High Court in U.B.S. Teotia v.
Union of India (supra). For the same reasons the
observations in the order dated 21-1-1986 passed
by this Court in special leave petitions arising out of
Delhi High Court decision in U.B.S. Teotia case
(supra) that "the respondents are the Army Officers
within the meaning of Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules
and they are entitled to add the length of their
unbroken service as ECOs and SSCOs for the
purpose of reckoning seniority" cannot be regarded
as based on a correct interpretation of Rule 8 of the
CRPF Rules. The said observations must, therefore,
be confined to that particular case only".
8. In view of what is stated by this Court in the aforesaid
two decisions, the inevitable conclusion is that the judgment
of the Delhi High Court is in order and needs no interference
while that of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is
indefensible and therefore is set aside. Civil Appeal No.5353 of
2000 is allowed while the other appeals are dismissed. No
order need be passed in the writ petition.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
Print This Judgment
|