S K ARORA Vs. M P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SENIORITY in services is usually irksome. But the nature of dispute amongst officers in Class 'A' of Indian Defence Estates Service, who were promoted from Class 'B' of Military and Cantonment service where they were working as Assistant Military Estates Officers (AMEO) and Assistant Military Estates Officers (Technical) (AMEOT), is slightly, unusual. That is why apart from correctness or otherwise of directions issued by the 'Tribunal (Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi) for redetermining seniority one of the issues debated was if this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India should interfere with orders of Tribunal if substantial justice has been done between parties. To this may be added, yet, another, namely, if the Union of India should have approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition not for sake of justice or injustice. Legality or illegality of any provision but because it may have to pay few thousands, may be few lakhs more.

(2.) BUT, first, manner of appointment of two groups of officers and rules by which they were governed from time to time may he noticed as even though initially posts of both AMEO and AMEOT were sanctioned and created by the President in 1962 and they were governed for some time by different set of rules but were brought in common stream in 1976 and were promoted in Class 'A' before fresh rules were enforced in 1983 and 1985, yet entire thrust of attack to justify differential treatment to AMEOT was founded on difference in method of their selection. AMEOS were included in Class II of Military Land and Cantonment Service (Class I and II) Rules, 1951 for the first time in 1964. Relevant amendment by notification issued in 1964 was incorporated in 1951 Rules when it was Amended in 1968. Amended Rule 4(v)(c) read as under:-

(3.) THUS from this date officers appointed as AMEOT either under the 1968 Rules or prior to it became members of Military Lands and Cantonment Service (MLC) to whom 1951 Rules applied. On that there is no dispute. But what about 1964 to 1976? Should they be deemed to have served under no rules as claimed by AMEOS and strangely even by Union, or they were governed by Central Civil Services (Temporary) Rules 1965 (CCS Rules). And if so what was its effect on their promotion and seniority. For this one of the appointment letters issued to AMEOT containing terms and conditions is extracted below:-