Supreme Court of India
G. RABINATHANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 242
- Decided
- 3 April 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
If uninterrupted service is established, the appellant is entitled to seniority from 30 June 1963, but the determination of whether NCC service counts as defence service is left to the Government.
Summary
G. Rabinathan, an Emergency Commissioned Officer in the defence services from June 1963 to September 1967, joined the National Cadet Corps (NCC) from December 1967 to June 1972 and was later appointed as a Probationary Commercial Tax Officer in Karnataka. He sought continuity of service for seniority under Rule 6‑A of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, claiming seniority from 1963. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejected his claim. The Supreme Court examined whether the NCC tenure constitutes defence service and whether continuity of service exists. The Court held that Rule 6‑A requires uninterrupted service; if continuity is established, seniority would date from 30 June 1963. However, the Court could not decide whether NCC service is defence service and remitted the question to the Government. The appeals were allowed, the Tribunal’s orders set aside, and the matter sent back to the Government for a decision within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Rule 6‑A of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 for seniority purposes.
- Whether service rendered in the National Cadet Corps (NCC) qualifies as defence service under the said rule.
Legislation cited
Subjects
senioritydefence serviceNational Cadet Corpscontinuity of serviceservice lawKarnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules
Judgment
G. RABINATHAN A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
APRIL 3, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B
Service Law
Kamataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957:
Rule 154..!.seniority-Defence Officer-Appointment to NCC and later C
to State Service-Service rendered in defence and NCC-Computation of for
seniority in State Service-Held for benefit under Rule 6A there should be
continuity of servi:e-Matter remitted to State for consideration Whether NCC
service is defence service.
D
The appellant joined service as Emergency Commissioned Officer on
June 30, 1963 and was released therefrom on 16.9.1967. Thereafter, he
joined NCC on 30.12.1967 where he continued upto 21st June 1972. From
27th June 1972 he was appointed as Probationary Commercial Tax Officer
by the State of Karnataka. He requested the Government for condonation
of the break in service between the Defence and the NCC and the Govern· E
men! gave him continuity for the purpose of his seniority with effect from
October 13, 1963. The appellant claimed seniority from 1963 but the same
was denied. He ftled an appli!=8tion before the State Administrative
Tribunal which was rejected.
In appeals to this Court on the question whether the appellant was F
entitled to the benefit of Rule 6-A of the Karnataka Government Servants
(Seniority) Rules, 1957:
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the orders of Tribunal, this
Court
G
HELD: 1. A reading of Rule 6A of the Karnataka Government
Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 would clearly indicate that the transfer
or appointment of an officer of the Defence Services to an All India Service
or a Civil Service of the Union or the Civil Service of any other State to
any equivalent class or grade of service In the State Civil Services shall H
129
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.
A not be treated as first appointment to that class· or grade of service for
purpose of seniority. The Rule indicates that there should be continuity of
the service. [132-D]
2. If there is no break in service, certainly the appellant would be
entitled to rixation of seniority with effect from 30.6.1963. However, he
B was given continuity for the purpose of seniority with effect from October
13, 1963 but the larger question whether the service in the NCC was a
Defence Service was not decided and the Tribunal observed that, that
would be eminently a matter to be decided by the Government. Under these
circumstances, Court cannot make any such declaration. Accordingly, the
C matter is remitted to the Government for consideration of the case. In the
event the Government comes to the conclusion that the NCC Service would
be part of the Defence Service, the appellant would be entitled to the
continuity of the service with effect from 30.6.1963. (132-E to H, 133-A]
State of Kamataka v. B.S.N. Reddy and Ors., [1995] Suppl. 3 SCC
D 657, held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4430-31
of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.1994 of the Karnataka
E Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in A. Nos. 1875 and 1710 of 1990.
Raju Ramachandran, Joseph Pookkatt and R.A. Perumal Advs. for
the Appellant.
Dr. R.B. Masodkar and K.L. Taneja for the Respondents No. 1-9.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
G Heard both the counsel on merilo. The only question is whether the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of Rule 6-A of the Karnataka Govern-
ment Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, for short the Rules, amended with
effect from November 13, 1969. The factual matrix lie in a short compass.
The appellant was appointed in the defence service as an Emergency
H Commissioned Officer with effect from June 30, 1963 and he was released
' RABINATIIAN v. STATE
G. 131
from defence service on 16.9.1967 after noon. Thereafter, he was again A
granted commission in NCC and he joined the service on 30.12.1967. He
continued in NCC upto 21.6.1972 after-noon. In the meanwhile, he had
applied for the recruitment in the Karnataka State Civil Service as a
Probationary Commercial Tax Officer. He was selected and appointed with
effect from 27.6.1972 Forenoon. On its basis, he claimed seniority from B
1963 and when denied, he approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.
1875/90 and 4720/90. When there was a difference of opinion between the
two members of the Tribunal, on reference, the Full Bench held that the
matter is covered by the orders of this Court in State of Kamataka v. B.S.N.
Reddy & Ors., [1995] Suppl. 3 SCC 657 and rejected the relief. Thus this
appeal by special ieave. C
Rule 6-A reads thus:
"Rule 6-A: The transfer or appointment of an officer of the
Defence Services; an All India Service or a Civil Service of. the
Union or the Civil Service of any other State to any equivalent D
class or grade of service in the State Civil Services shall not be
treated as first appointment to that class or grade of service in the
State Civil Services shall not be treated as first appointment to·
that class or grade of service for purpose of seniority; and the
seniority of an officer so transferred or appointed shall be deter- E
mined with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade
of service or services to which he belonged prior to such transfer
or appointment.
Provided that, where such transfer or appointment is made at
the request of the officer, he shall be placed in the seniority list F
of the class or grade of service to which he is transferred or
appointed below the persons borne on that class or grade of service
immediately prior to the date of such transfer or appointment.
Provided further, that the seniority of a person transferred in G
public interest via a vis the person actually holding the post in the
class or grade to which he is transferred shall be determined on
the date of such transfer with reference to his first appointment to
the class or grade from which he was transferred.'
Explanation is not relevant, hence omitted. In B.S.N. Reddy's case H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.
A (supra) this Court had specifically left this point open thus:
~ . ~
'In the present case it is not necessary to examine the impact
. of that Rule on the question of fixation of seniority of any person
who while in the Defence Service or an All India Service named
in the Rule came to be appointed to the State Service without any
B break in the continuity of his services.' ·
- ' ?-_,
In that case since there was a break in service, it was held that Ruic
6-A did not apply to the respondents therein. Thus, it could be seen that
·question of seniority of a person, who had the continuity of service in the
Defence as well as Staie Civil Serviees, was left open. Therefore, the point
C is at large and is available to the appellant for consideration in this case.
A reading 'of the Rule would clearly indicate tht the transfer or
appointment of an officer of the Defence Service~ to an All India Service
or a Civil Service of the Union or the Civil Service of any other State to
D any equivalent class or grade of service in the State Civil Services shall not
be treated as first appointment to that class or grad.e of service for purpose
of seniority. Therefore, the Rule indicates that there should be continuity
of the service. In other words, there. would not be any break in service.
. . . ;_ - ... ..
If there is no break in service, _certainly the appellant is entitled to
E fixation of seniority with effect from 30.6.1963. But the question is whether
he had the continuity of service: It would appear that when. he requested
for condonation of the break in service between the Defence and the NCC,
the Government of India in its proceedings dated 18.12.1972 stated thus:
Granted seniority with effect from 13th Oct., 1963 for the
F previous commissioned service rendered in the Armed Forces
vide Dte. Gen. NCC letter No. 5110/68/NCC-PRES{A)NOL VIII
dated 20 Nov. 68.'
In other words, the continuity was given for the purpose of seniority w.el.
G October 13, 1963. But the larger question is whether the service in the NCC
is a Defence Service? By way of an amendment, the appellant sought for
relief in the petition but that was not decided and the tribunal observed
that, that would be eminently a matter to be decided by the Government.
Under these circumstances, we cannot make any declaration whether
..
:
H the service rendered by the appellant in the NCC would be a part of
G. RABINATIIAN v. STATE 133
Defence Service. In the event, the Government comes to the conclusion A
that the service rendered by the appellant in NCC would be a part of the
Defence Service, certainly, he would be entitled to the continuity of the
service w.e.f. 30.6.1963.
The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The orders of the Tribuoal are
set aside. The matter is remitted to the Government for consideration of B
the case of the appellant whether the service rendered by him in NCC
would be considered to be a Defence Service for the purpose of applying
Rule 6-A of the Rules. The Government is directed to dispose of the
matter within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this
order. C
No costs.
T.N.A. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search