Back
High Court Of Delhi
ISHWAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 271 of 1975
Decided On : 02/07/1994
RELEASED EMERGENCY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS - SENIORITY - RULES - INTERPRETATION - CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF) - APPOINTMENT - TEMPORARY VACANCY - PERMANENT VACANCY - RESERVATION - ELIGIBILITY - SERVICE IN ARMED FORCES - COUNTING - BENEFITS - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - DELAY IN CHALLENGE - WRIT PETITION - maintainability.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a released Emergency Commissioned Officer (ECO), was appointed as Assistant Commandant in the Border Security Force (BSF) in 1967. However, his services were terminated in 1968 due to allegations of misconduct. Subsequently, he was appointed as Assistant Commandant in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in 1971. The petitioner challenged the termination of his services from the BSF and sought seniority in the CISF based on his military service, claiming the benefit of Rule 6 (l) (b) of the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules 1967 (1967 Rules) or Rule 6 (l) (b) of the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules 1971 (1971 Rules).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Rule 6 (l) (b) of the 1971 Rules, which provided for the counting of military service for the purpose of determining seniority in the CISF. The court found that the petitioner's appointment in the CISF was against a temporary vacancy that was likely to be made permanent, and that he was subsequently confirmed in the post. The court also held that the petitioner's delay in challenging the termination of his services from the BSF was not justified, and that he could not be allowed to challenge the order after a delay of 15 years.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Rule 6 (l) (b) of the 1971 Rules for the purpose of determining his seniority in the CISF? 2. Whether the petitioner's appointment in the CISF was against a permanent vacancy or a temporary vacancy? 3. Whether the petitioner's delay in challenging the termination of his services from the BSF was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Rule 6 (l) (b) of the 1971 Rules and held that it applied to all released ECOs and SSCOs who were appointed in the Central Civil Services and posts, whether appointed once or more than once, during the period of operation of the Rules, provided they served as ECOs and SSCOs of the Armed Forces of the Union after November 1, 1962 and before January 10, 1968, subject to the condition that their case did not fall in the exceptions mentioned in Rule 2 or Note to Rule 4 (1) of the 1971 Rules. 2. The court held that the petitioner's appointment in the CISF was against a temporary vacancy that was likely to be made permanent, as defined in Rule 3 (e) of the 1971 Rules, and that he was subsequently confirmed in the post. 3. The court held that the petitioner's delay in challenging the termination of his services from the BSF was not justified, as he had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to refix the petitioner's seniority in the CISF by counting the services rendered by him in the Army as an Emergency Commissioned Officer, including the period of his training. The petitioner was also entitled to all benefits flowing from the computation of the fresh seniority in accordance with Rule 6 (l) (b) of the 1971 Rules.
( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition through which the petitioner, a released Emergency Commissioned Officer, inter alia, prays for quashing the order dated November 26. 1968 whereby his services were terminated by the first respondent while he was working as Assistant Commandant in the Border Security Force (for short bsf ) and claims seniority on the basis of Rule 6 (l) (b) of the Released Emergency Commissioned. Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules 1967 (for short 1967 Rules ) or Rule 6 (l) (b) of the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules 1971 (for short 1971 Rules ), in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short cisf ) to which he was subsequently appointed on January 12, 1971 as Assistant Commandant.
( 2 ) A narrative of the relevant facts necessary for resolving the controversy are as under :
( 3 ) ON June 30, 1963 the petitioner was commissioned in the Army as an Emergency Commissioned Officer after having undergone the requisite training. On September 15, 1967 the petitioner was demobilised and released from the Army while he was working as Acting Captain. Before the petitioner was released from the Army he was informed that he had been selected for being appointed as Assistant Commandant in the BSF. On November 2, 1967 formal orders of his appointment as Assistant Commandant in the BSF, in the grade of Rs. 325-25-600-35-670-EB-35-950 with special pay of Rs. l50 p. m. , were issued. However, the appointment of the petitioner in the BSF lasted for a short time as his services were terminated by the first respondent on November 26, 1968. It needs to be pointed out that few months before his termination on September 8, 1968 the petitioner s explanation was sought with regard to the allegations that while on patrol duty on August 2, 1968 he slept with a girl in Village Chhanni Dawani in Jammu Province and also took her and Shiv Ram, her father, in his vehicle to Jammu. In response the petitioner by his explanation dated September 9, 1968 stated that the allegation that he slept with the girl was totally false. He, however, admitted that he took shelter for the night in the village. With regard - to the other allegation that he carried the said persons in his vehicle to Jammu, he averred that he had given lift to the said persons in his vehicle on humanitarian grounds and without any self interest. He closed his explanation by saying that he had committed a blunder for which he should be forgiven and he will never repeat the indiscretion. After termination of his services from the BSF, on his representation for reinstatement, the petitioner was appointed in the CISF on January 12, 1971 as Assistant Commandant, which post carried a scale of 350-25-500-30-590-EB-30-800-EB-830-35-900 plus special pay of Rs. 100 p. m. It was specified in the order of appointment that his appointment -was temporary in nature. By order dated August 14, 1972 the Government of India fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 450 per month by giving him the benefit of his Army service in accordance with Office Memorandum dated January 1, 1972. On December 24, 1973 the petitioner was declared to have completed his probation as Assistant Commandant with effect from January 20, 1973 and was also declared suitable for confirmation. It appeals that respondent No. 3 Mr. D. V. Behl, who was promoted on July 1, 1974 as Commandant, stole a march over the petitioner and the petitioner felt aggrieved against this treatment which impelled him to file the present writ petition, which was instituted on March 3, 1975.
( 4 ) INITIALLY the main grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that he was not given the benefit of his past service rendered in the Army in accordance with Rule 6 (l) (b) of the Rules for the purpose of calculating his seniority in the CISF. Subsequently the petitioner on April 4, 1 (983 amended
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
