1. 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 25.8.1998, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

2. The petitioner had filed writ petition on 2.2.1993, praying that it be declared that disengagement of the personnel mentioned in the schedule is illegal, and they are continuing in service, as if disengagement never took place, and the communication dated 30.12.1992 may be declared to be invalid, and quashed, and it be declared that the personnel will continue to be governed by the conditions of service which were originally offered, to these personnel. Then, all benefits consequent to the aforesaid relief are also claimed. The communication dated 30.12.1992 is produced as Annexure-4, which has been issued by the Director (Trg) to the Chief of Army Staff, informing that the President has conveyed the sanction for a further extension of provisions of letter dated 30.3.1992, for a further period of nine months, w.e.f. 1.4.1992 to 31.12.1992, so also, that the sanction was also conveyed for further embodiment of 128 Infantry Battalion Ecological Task Force w.e.f. 1.1.1993 to 31.10.1993, under Rule 33 of Territorial Army Rules, 1948 under revised terms and conditions given therein, which were, firstly, that all TA personnel of the Ecological Task Force (excluding Regular Army Personnel) will be disembodied on 31.12.1992. Secondly, that a total of 64 TA Personnel of the Ecological Task Force will be re-embodied w.e.f. 1.1.1993, and the remaining TA personnel of the Ecological Task Force will be re-embodied w.e.f. 1.1.1993, and the remaining TA personnel of the Ecological Task Force will be re-embodied w.e.f. 1.3.1993. Then the provision was made for annual leave/casual leave, and provision for employment of casual labour etc. was made..

3. The learned Single Judge considered various aspects, about comprehension of expression "enrolment" "embodiment" and "re-embodiment" etc., and ultimately found, that t sere is no illegality in the impugned order Annexure-4.

4. Arguing the appeal, all that was submitted was, that embodiment made had the effect of entitling the embodied personnel to the benefits mentioned in Annexure-1, including, that the ex-serviceman drawing pension will continue to get full pension, in addition to pay and allowances as per regular army Group D (Infantry soldiers), and in addition, all other allowances and benefits, such as.....CILQ, DA/ADA etc. would be applicable as per regular army. Then, personnel already drawing pension will continue to do so in addition to their pay and allowances but they will not be entitled to enhancement of their pensionary benefits; and they will be entitled to family/disability pension in the event of death of disability during embodiment. Then, the ex-serviceman who are not in receipt of pension, will be entitled to gratuity after 5 years of embodied service or 10 years engagement at the rate specified in Annexure-1. It was contended that the order Annexure-4 has the effect of bringing about artificial break in the service, so as to adversely affect gratuity and continuity in service. The other submission made was, that this order has been passed in colourable exercise of powers, inasmuch as the embodied personnel were sought to be got rid of, for a period of two months, and during this period of two months, casual labour were sought to be appointed, which was violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, so also the order Annexure-4.

6. We have considered the submissions, and have gone through the material available on record, including Territorial Army Act, and the Rules, which were made available to us by the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. At this place it may be observed, that all the persons mentioned in the schedule have undisputedly served for initial period of embodiment, being 7 years, and some have enjo