2016 Supreme(SC) 153

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
LT. COL. P.K. CHOUDHARY AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3208 OF 2015
WITH
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
IC 55047L LT. COL. RAY GAUTAM PRASAD (RETD.) & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. D.11682 OF 2015
WITH
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
IC 54169H LT. COL. FARAN SIDIQUI & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. D.10623 OF 2015
Decided On : 15-02-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
There is no infirmity in adopting “Command Exit Model” for operational cadres.
Scale of pay of posts not determinative of cadre.
Plea of legitimate expectation cannot be raised when policy change is in public interest.
Denial of legitimate expectation, if arbitrary or perverse would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Cadre restructuring – Armed forces – Allocation of vacancies as per requirement of different wings – Need for lowering age in operational cadres – Second tranche of vacancies – No infirmity in adopting “Command Exit Model” for operational cadres – No discrimination. (Para 20)

       (b) Service law – Cadre restructuring – Armed forces – Government accepting “Command Exit Model” – Vacancies of first tranche distributed in breach thereof – Cannot result in reversal of Government decision to accept “Command Exit Model” – Earlier allocation cannot also negate the “Command Exit Model” – Promotion of officers in first tranche cannot affect binding nature of the Government decision. (Para 24, 25)

       (c) Service law – Armed Forces – Command tenure – For Arms and Arms support cadres – Reduced from four to two years for Arms cadres leaving it as four years for armed support cadres – Alleged excess allocations to Armed support cadres in first tranche should not have been adjusted in second tranche – Government reducing command tenure for Arms support cadre to three years – 141 vacancies being created for Arms support cadres – Directed to be given retrospective effect. (Para 28, 29)

       (d) Service law – Cadre – Ingredients – Transferability – Essential attributes of posts comprising a single cadre – Scale of pay of posts not determinative of cadre – Officers serving in the Service stream of the Army do not constitute a single cadre with officers serving in Arms and Arms Support. (Par 31, 32)

       AIR 1958 SC 419; (1988) 2 SCC 214; (1997) 3 SCC 561; (2000) 1 SCC 644 – Relied upon

       (e) Legitimate expectation – A reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though the person who has such an expectation has no right in law to receive the benefit expected by him – Any such expectation can arise from an “express promise” or a “consistent course of practice or procedure” which the person claiming the benefit may reasonably expect to continue – Plea of legitimate expectation cannot be raised when policy change is in public interest – Denial of legitimate expectation, if arbitrary or perverse would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 39, 45)

       (1993) 1 SCC 71; (1993) 3 SCC 499; (1999) 4 SCC 727; (2003) 3 SCC 485; (2006) 8 SCC 381; (2009) 1 SCC 180; (2006) 8 SCC 399; (2010) 3 SCC 274; (2012) 11 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (1990) 64 Aus LJR 327 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       Four out of the five Respondents viz. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary, Lt. Col. G.S. Dhillon, Lt. Col. A.K. Pandey and Lt. Col. R.M.S. Pundir had opted for commission into Army Service Corps (AMC) and none of them had opted either for Combat Arms or Arms Support. Similarly, Lt. Col. Ajay Chawla-Respondent No.5 had given Army Service Corps as one of the options of his choice. The respondents were accordingly allocated and have served in their respective Corps and Raisings as Lt. Colonels, which rank they continue to hold at present.

       1484 additional vacancies in the rank of Colonel were sanctioned which were to be released in two phases spread over a period of four years from 2004 to 2008.

       In the first phase, the Government released 750 vacancies, out of the newly created 1484 vacancies, in the rank of Colonel. These vacancies were sanctioned by upgradation of appointments in the rank of Lt. Colonel to Colonel in a phased manner spread over a period of two years i.e. 2004-2005 and were distributed amongst Arms, Arms Support and Services on a pro-rata basis. The result was that officers serving in Arms, Arms Support and Services in different Corps of the Army were all equally benefitted by the fresh creation.

       The additional 734 vacancies sanctioned in second tranche were directed to be allocated on what is described as “Command Exit Model”.

       Aggrieved by the denial of a pro-rata share in the 2nd tranche of the additional vacancies, officers like the respondents who are serving in the Arms Support and Service Corps of the Army, filed Original Applications before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

       The Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi has allowed the Original Application(s) filed by the respondents.

       Finding of the Court:

       Respondents do not form a single cadre with Combat Arms or Combat Arms Support cadre. Government had accepted the “Command Exit Model”.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.