Judgment :

T.S. Thakur, J.

The short question that falls for determination in these two appeals filed by the Union of India is whether the 'Tenure Clause' applicable to AFMS officers of the rank of Lt. General and its equivalent as well as to Director General Armed Force Medical Services (DGAFMS) is constitutionally valid. The Tribunal has, while allowing the OAs filed by the respondents, taken the view that a fixed tenure of two years provided in order No.10(14)/06/D(Med) dated 20th April, 2007 is ultra vires and accordingly set aside the clause with the direction that all the Lt. Generals and their equivalent in AFMS will retire only upon completion of 61 years of age provided in the said order. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:

2. Respondent A.K. Behl was commissioned in the Army Medical Corps on 1st March, 1976 and was seconded to the Air Force in the rank of Flying Officer. He was in due course promoted and appointed as Air Marshal (equivalent to Lt. General) w.e.f. 1st April, 2012. His date of birth being 17th September, 1954, he was under the provisions of the existing policy due to retire on 30th September, 2014 on attaining the age of 60 years after a tenure of two years which he completed on 31st March, 2014.

3. Vice Admiral Shalesh Rohatagi, respondent in the connected appeal, whose date of birth is 24th September, 1954, too joined the Army Medical Corps and was promoted on 1st July, 2012 to the rank of Vice Admiral which is equivalent to the rank of Lt. General. He completed his tenure of two years in that rank on 30th June, 2014 and was due to retire on 30th September, 2014 upon completion of 60 years of age.

4. Orders dated 11th October, 2013 and 7th November, 2013 were issued to respondent Air Marshal A.K. Behl, intimating to him that he would retire from service on 30th September, 2014 (AN) on attaining the age of 60 years. Similarly, orders dated 11th October, 2013 and 11th December, 2013 were to the same effect issued to respondent Vice Admiral Shalesh Rohtagi.

5. Aggrieved, the respondents submitted statutory complaints which were disposed of by the Competent Authority as 'untenable', on the ground that the officers had not been subjected to any military wrong and were being asked to retire from service on the basis of a Government policy that was uniformly applicable to all the officers of the rank of Lt. Generals and equivalent and DGAFMS in the AFMS. Aggrieved by the order rejecting his statutory complaint, respondent Air Marshal A.K. Behl filed OA No. 250 of 2014 before the Armed Forces Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, challenging the policy of the Government prescribing a tenure linked age of retirement for officers of the rank of Lt. General and equivalent in the Armed Forces Medical Services and praying for quashing of the retirement orders issued to him. A similar petition being OA No. 296 of 2014 was filed by respondent Vice Admiral Shalesh Rohtagi also. By an order dated 12-09-2014 the AFT allowed O.A. No. 250 of 2014 filed by Air Marshal A.K. Behl holding that the tenure clause of two years provided in the impugned order No.10(14)/06/D/(Med) dated 20th April, 2007 was ultra vires and directing that all Lt. Generals and its equivalent rank holders in the AFMS shall retire only after completion of 61 years of age. On an application for clarification filed by the respondent separately, the Tribunal passed another order dated 15th September, 2014 whereby it held that orders of retirement dated 11th October, 2013 and 7th November, 2013 shall also stand quashed. An oral prayer made on behalf of the Union of India for a certificate of fitness to appeal having been declined by the Tribunal, the Union has filed the present appeals by leave under Section 31 of the Act.

6. Civil Appeal Nos.9382-9383 of 2014 filed by the Union of India challenge order dated 15th September, 2014 passed in OA No. 296 of 2014 filed by respondent Vice Admiral Shalesh Rohtagi relying upon its order in O.A. No. 250 of 201