Important Point—There can be no differential treatment between an employee directly recruited vis-a-vis another who is promoted.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India—Articles 14 and 16—Equality and parity—Reasonable classification—Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification—A classification passes test of Article 14 only if there is an intelligible differentia between those grouped together and others who are kept out of group and there exists nexus between differentia and object of legislation. (Para 10)
       (AIR 1952 SC 75); (AIR 2014 SC 2140) ; . (AIR 1958 SC 538) ; (AIR 1963 SC 222) —Relied.
       (B) Service Law—Retirement—Age—Air Force—Classification of Group Captains (Select) and Group Captains (Time Scale) in two groups for purposes of prescribing different retirement ages, is offensive to provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India—Birthmark of an officer who is a part of cadre of Group Captains cannot provide an intelligible differentia for classification to be held valid on touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution—There can be no differential treatment between an employee directly recruited vis-a-vis another who is promoted—So long as two employees are a part of same cadre, they cannot be treated differently either for purposes of pay and allowances or other conditions of service, including age of superannuation—It is length of service and continued usefulness of officer on minimal requirements stipulated for such promotion that entitles an officer to rise to higher professional echelons—Once it is conceded that two are equal in all other respects as indeed they are, there is no real or reasonable basis for treating them to be different for purposes of age of retirement—Orders passed by Tribunal affirmed and appeals dismissed. (Paras 19, 21, 24, 35, 38 and 39)
       (1980) 1 SCC 634; (1981) 4 SCC 335; (1999) 4 SCC 756—Relied.
       (C) Service Law—Promotion—Promotion to a higher cadre invariably implies higher responsibilities even when essential nature of work may continue to be the same— Nature of duties in such situations does not undergo any significant change even when an officer picks up a higher rank—It is only the addition of higher and more onerous responsibility attached to office that fall on his shoulder—Lesser or higher allocation of such duties will not trivialise promotion of a Wing Commander to rank of Group Captain which progression must be treated to be a promotion for all intents and purposes If a Wing Commander is promoted as a Group Captain on Time Scale basis, nature of duties must, by reason of such promotion, be more onerous than those discharged by him as a Wing Commander. (Para 30)
       Facts of Case—Instant appeals arise out of orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby Tribunal has allowed petitions filed by respondents holding them entitled to continue in service upto age of 57 years in case of officers serving in the ground duty branch and 54 years in the case of those serving in the flying branch of the Indian Air Force. Issue under consideration is whether respondents who at relevant point of time held rank of Group Captain (Time Scale) in Indian Air Force were entitled to continue in service upto 54 and 57 years depending upon whether they were serving in flying or ground duty branch of the force.
       Findings of Court—Basis for classification for purposes of age of superannuation which the appellant has projected is much too tenuous to be accepted as a valid basis for giving to Time Scale Officers a treatment different from the one given to the Select Officers. Concerns arising from parity in retirement age of Time Scale and Select Officers too are more perceptional than real. Such concerns remain to be substantiated on the basis of any empirical data. Classification made by the Government of India for purposes of different retirement age for Time Scale Officers and Select Officers does not stand scrutiny on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as rightly held by the Tribunal.

Judgment :-

T.S. Thakur, J.

1. These appeals arise out of separate but similar orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the petitions filed by the respondents holding them entitled to continue in service upto the age of 57 years in the case of officers serving in the ground duty branch and 54 years in the case of those serving in the flying branch of the Indian Air Force. The solitary question that falls for our consideration, therefore, is whether the respondents who at the relevant point of time held the rank of Group Captain (Time Scale) in the Indian Air Force were entitled to continue in service upto 54 and 57 years depending upon whether they were serving in the flying or ground duty branch of the force. The question arises in the following backdrop:

2. Post Kargil War, the Government of India constituted a Committee headed by Ajay Vikram Singh, former Defence Secretary (hereinafter referred to as AVS Committee) to study ways and means that would help ensure a “younger age profile” for the commanding officer in the Indian Armed Forces. The Committee made its recommendations in regard to all the three wings of the armed forces which were considered and accepted by the Government culminating in the issue of separate orders regarding re-structuring of the officers cadre in the Army, Navy and the Air Force. In so far as the Indian Air Force was concerned, the Government of India by an order dated 12th March, 2005 revised the terms and conditions applicable to Air Force Officers excluding officers serving in the medical and dental branch. The order was to the following effect:

“ANNEXURE P-2

No.2(2)/Us(L)/D(AIR-III)/04

Bharat Sarkar/Government of India

Raksha Mantralay/Ministry of Defence

New Delhi-110011

March 12, 2005

The Chief of Air Staff

Air Headquarters,

Vayu Bhawan,

New Delhi.

Subject: Restructuring of the officers cadre of the air force.

Sir,

The President is pleased to sanction revision of various terms of service for Air Force Officers as given in the succeeding paragraphs excluding officers of Medical and Dental Branch.

Substantive Promotion:

To reduce the age profile and supersession levels in the Air Force as also to improve vertical mobility, promotion to the substantive ranks of officers will be made on completion of reckonable commissioned service as indicated below:

Rank	Reckonable commissioned service
(a) Flying officer (FG Offr)	ON commissioning
(b) Flight lieutenant (Flt Lt.)	2 years
(C) Squadron leader (Sqn Ldr)	6 years
(d) Wing Commander (Wg Cdr)	13 years
(e) Group Captain (Gp Capt) (Time Scale)	26 years

3. Promotion accruing from Para 2 above shall also be subject to the officers fulfilling other criteria to be notified immediately by the Air Headquarters: through Air HQ Human Resource Policy. Loss of seniority for non qualification in promotion examinations already awarded will continue to hold good.

4. Those serving in the rank of Wg Cdr (Time Scale) will now be eligible for grant of the substantive rank of Wg Cdr. On grant of substantive rank of Wg Cdr these officers would become eligible for consideration for Gp Capt (Select)/Gp Capt (Time Scale) provided that;

(a) Those who have attained the rank of Wg Cdr (Time Scale) on completion of 20 years of service before the dare of implementation of the order and who have been found suitable for grant of Wg Cdr (Time Bound) based, on the new Human resource policy notified by Air HQ will be eligible for consideration to the rank of GP Capt (Select). These officers would reckon their seniority immediately below the junior most select Wg Cdr who has already been promoted ahead of him prior to Implementation of this order.

(b) Those who have attained the rank of Wg Cdr (Time Scale) on completion of 20 years of service, before the date of implementation of the order and who h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 707

Important Point—There can be no differential treatment between an employee directly recruited vis-a-vis another who is promoted.

Cases Referred (9)