Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 768
High Court Of Delhi
KISHANCHAND - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 1122 of 1994
Decided On : 09/29/1995
K.C.MITTAL
The exclusion of a class of individuals from a benefit or privilege without a rational nexus to the purpose of the law or instruction is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating the right to equal treatment under the law.
Headnote:
AIR FORCE - Pensionary Benefits - Pre-Commissioning Training - Counting of Service - Interpretation of Air Force Instructions - Discrimination - Equal Rights - Rational Nexus - Legality of Discharge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an airman in the Indian Air Force, served for nearly 22 months before being discharged on selection for a permanent commission in the Army. He sought to count his pre-commissioning training period at the Indian Military Academy (IMA) towards pensionary benefits, but his request was denied based on Air Force Instructions (AFI) 142162, which excluded airmen undergoing training at IMA from being treated as "service cadets" entitled to pay and allowances.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the exclusion of airmen undergoing training at IMA from the definition of "service cadets" in AFI 142162 was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating the petitioner's right to equal treatment under the law. The court found no rational nexus between the exclusion and the purpose of the instruction, and noted that airmen undergoing training at IMA received the same training and performed the same functions as their counterparts in other training establishments.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's pre-commissioning training period at IMA could be counted towards pensionary benefits. 2. Whether the exclusion of airmen undergoing training at IMA from the definition of "service cadets" in AFI 142162 was discriminatory and violative of the petitioner's right to equal treatment under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of equal rights and the requirement of a rational nexus between a classification and the purpose of a law or instruction. The court found that the exclusion of airmen undergoing training at IMA from the definition of "service cadets" was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it deprived them of benefits that were available to their counterparts in other training establishments without any justifiable reason.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's claim, and directed the respondents to count the petitioner's pre-commissioning training period at IMA as service cadet and pay him the pay and allowances for that period.
( 1 ) THE short point involved in this petition is whether services rendered by the petitioner in the Indian Air Force for nearly 22 months can be counted towards pensionary benefits. The petitioner joined Indian Air Force and served from 21st March, 1967 to 11th January, 1970. He was. however, discharged from Air Force w. e. f. 11th January, 1970 on Selection for Permanent Commission in the Aamy. His lien on the present rank was not maintained nor the service rendered by him for the duration of his pre-commissioning training has been counted towards pensionery benefits. The action of the respondent is based on the wrong interpretation of the rules. When on being selected on permanent commission, his duration of pre-commissioning training was not considered. The petitioner made representation through Commandant Indian Military Academy seeking benefit of service rendered during that period. He also met personally with the then Chief of Air Staff, but his representation was rejected by the Army Head Quarters on 20th May, 1976 thereby showing its inability to sponsor the petitioner s case for the benefit of service rendered by him in the Indian Air Force from 21st March, 1967 to 11th January, 1970. He thereafter filed a non-statutory complaint. The same. was also reacted on 17th May, 1977 but without assigning any reason. The Controller General Defence Accounts informed the petitioner that his service rendered in the Air Force could not be counted for pension because of break in service as he stood discharged, hence could not claim the benefit of pre-commissioning training. Subsequent thereto on 12th September, 1991, Army Head Quarters intimated to the petitioner that his service in Air Force. preceding his discharge on 11th January, 1970 had been counted but the pre-commissioning period at the Indian Military Academy could not be counted as he was not granted pay and allowances for that period. The petitioner filed a statutory complaint which met the same fate, as his earlier representation, on 24th January, 1994. Aggrieved by the wrong interpretation given to the rules and the army instructions the petitioner approached this Court.
( 2 ) THE respondent has taken the plea that under the provisions of IAF Act Rules, 1932 Chapter III, Rule 13, Clause (VI) "on selection for permanent commission in the Army" the petitioner was discharged on 11th January, 1970. Hence, his name was struck off from the strength of IAF w. e. f. 12th January, 1970. That there are Air Force Instructions called AFI 142162 under para No. 5 of that instructions, the time spent by the petitioner as airman in Indian Military Academy (in short IMA) was not to be treated as service. Hence the petitioner cannot take advantage of the period spent in IMA. Moreover, pursuance to this instruction, the petitioner was not granted pay and allowances as he underwent training at IMA. Hence, the petitioner was not treated as a service cadet during the precommissioning period, nor was discriminated by the respondent on this account. By omission one individual was granted benefit of pre-commissioning training but on being detected, the same has since been withdrawn. The petitioner had joined Indian Military Academy in 1970 hence he cannot claim any benefit of the Special Army Institutions 4/ S/ 74. He in fact would be governed by Army Instructions 12/s/58. The Special Army Instructions No. 4[s[74 came into effect on 29th July, 1974 which was much after the joining of the petitioners the Indian Military Academy. This instruction cannot be applied retrospectively.
( 3 ) BOTH the parties have heavily relied on the Air Force Instruction No. 142162. To appreciate their rival contentions, it is necessary to know what is stipulated in the said instruction No. 142162. The same is reproduced as under :
142. Pay and Allowance as "service Cadets" to Airmen including Apprentices during pre-commissioning training. Airmen including Apprentices of the Air Force selected as Ca
