JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J. :- The appellants, Union of India and the Director, Technical Development and Production (Air), Ministry of Defence, have preferred this appeal against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, holding that respondent K.T. Shastry was entitled to remain in service up to the superannuation age of 60 years and was not liable to be retired at the alleged superannuation age of 58 years.

2. The relevant admitted facts are that the respondent was recruited as a Senior Scientific Officer on October 12, 1966 in the Defence Science Service. He was posted in the Directorate of Technical Development and Production (Air), briefly called DTD & P. At the relevant time the Defence Science Service had three units under it, namely, (1) Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), 2) Directorate-General of Inspection (DGI) and (3) Directorate of Technical Development and Production (Air) (DTD & P).

The recruitment when made was always to the Defence Science Service, and after the recruitment, the recruits were posted according to the exigency of the service, in any of the said three units. Their services were interchangeable and inter-transferable between the three units. All the service conditions of the persons working in the three units including scales of pay, superannuation age, etc. were the same and were regulated by the same set of Rules, viz. Defence Science Service Rules.

3. In the year 1979, the Defence Science Service was trifurcated and reconstituted as follows: (1) Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) was reconstituted as Defence Research and Development Service (DRDS). (2) Directorate of Technical Development and Production (Air) (DTD & P) was reconstituted as Defence Aeronautical Quality Assurance Service (DAQAS), and (3) Directorate General of Inspection (DGI) was reconstituted as Defence Quality Assurance Service (DOAS). The appellant who was working in DTD & P became a member of DAQAS. When the trifurcation was made, the Service Rules governing the three units had a common Rule which was Rule 12 in DAQAS and DQAS and Rule 13 in DRDS which reads as follows:-

"Other conditions of service :

(1) The conditions of service of the members of the service in respect of matters not expressly provided for in these Rules, shall mutatis mutandis and subject to any special orders issued by the Government in respect of the service, be the same as those applicable to Officers (Civilians) of corresponding status in similar scientific institutions/ organisations under the Government of India."

4. At the time the present controversy arose and the respondent approached the Administrative Tribunal, he was holding the post of Deputy Chief Scientific Officer. By an Office Memorandum No. 7(3)/85-D(R&D) of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Research & Development dated 24-12-1985 the decision of the President was conveyed whereby Sceientific and Technical Personnel (Gazetted) of D. R. and D. S. in the grade of Scientist E and above, would retire at the age of 60 years and those in the lower grade for which flexible complementing scheme was applicable would also retire at the age of 60 years provided they had been promoted to the grades they were holding at the time of attaining the age of 58 years within the preceding five years. Subsequently by OM. No.7(3)/85-D(R&D) dated 10-2-1986 the said decision was extended to all Scientific and Technical personnel of the DRDO i.e. DRDS as listed in the Appendix A of that Memo. By virtue of Rule 12 quoted above, this benefit given to the members of DRDS was also available to the members of DAQAS since the said condition of service was not expressly provided for in the Service Rules. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the respondent was not liable to be retired at the age of 58 years his superannuation age being deemed to have been increased to 60 years in view of the OM dated 24-12-1985 read with OM dated 10-2-19