Holding

Fundamental Rules do not apply to NCC whole‑time officers whose remuneration is charged to Defence Services Estimates, so the Government’s order fixing retirement at 55 years is valid.

Summary

The respondents, former armed forces personnel, were re‑employed as whole‑time officers in the National Cadet Corps (NCC) and were granted permanent commissions under a Government order dated 23 May 1980, which fixed their retirement age at 55 (extendable to 57). They later sought to remain in service until the age of 58, invoking Fundamental Rule 56(a) and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Central Administrative Tribunal held in their favour, but the Union of India appealed. The Supreme Court examined whether the Fundamental Rules applied to NCC whole‑time officers and whether their pay being charged to Defence Services Estimates excluded them from those rules. It held that the Fundamental Rules apply only to servants whose pay is debitable to Civil Estimates; since NCC officers are paid from Defence Estimates, the Fundamental Rules do not apply. Consequently, the Government’s order fixing the retirement age at 55 is valid, and the respondents must retire at that age. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and dismissed the respondents’ applications.

Issues considered

Whether the Fundamental Rules governing civil servants are applicable to whole‑time officers of the National Cadet Corps.
Whether NCC whole‑time officers are paid from Civil Estimates or Defence Services Estimates for the purpose of applying the Fundamental Rules.
Whether the Government can fix the retirement age of NCC whole‑time officers at 55 years notwithstanding the absence of a specific statutory rule.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
Fundamental Ruless. 2, s. 3, s. 56(a)
National Cadet Corps Act, 1948s. 13, s. 3, s. 9
National Cadet Corps Rules, 1948s. Rule 16 Proviso (iii)

Subjects

National Cadet Corpswhole‑time officersFundamental Rulesretirement ageCivil EstimatesDefence EstimatesCentral Administrative Tribunalpermanent commission

Judgment

""'r UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER A
v.
LT. COL. KOMAL CHARAN AND ORS.

MAY 14, 1992

(LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.J B

;....~
National Cadet Corps Act, 1948: Sections 3, 9 and 13. National Cadet
Corps Rules, 1948 Rule 16 Proviso (iii):

National Cadet Cops-Officers appointed on whole time basis-
Whether Fundamental Rules governing civil servants applicable-Whether
c
entitled to continue until age of fifty eight years or retire Wider the tenns and
conditions of service.
-i Fundamental Rules :
D
Frs 2, 3 and 56(a)-Whether applicable to N.C.C. whole time officers.

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1972:

N.C.C. Whole time officers-Age of retirement-Whether fifty-eight
~ years or tenns and conditions of their service. E
The respondents in the appeal were serving in the Armed Forces
from 1962-67. After the expiry of their tenure they applied for appointment
under the scheme of re-employment of ex-servic;e office.·s in the National
Cadet Corps and they were granted N.C.C. commission on whole time
basis. The grant of permanent commission was on the terms and condi- F
r-l tions as laid down in the Government Order letter dated 23rd May, 1980,
which fixed the age of retirement at fifty-five, and required the appointees
to exercise their option to accept the same on the said terms and conditions
if they so chose. The respondents exercised the option as indicated in the
letter, and according]y they were granted the permanent commission.
G
When the dates of their retirement were drawing close .the respon-
~ dents filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and
contended that they were entitled to continue in service until they attained
the age of fifty-eight years as per the Civil Service and1Fundamental Rules.
The Tribunal aggreeing with the respondents held they were entitled to H
259
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i992] 3 S.C.R.

A continue in service until they at~ined the age of fiftyoeight years and that
the service conditions as contained in, the letter dated 23rd May, 1980 to
the contrary were not legally valid.

The Union of India appealed to this Court and contended that the
whole time officers of the N.C.C. are appointed in accordance with the
B provisions of the National Cadet Crops Act and Rules made f,hereunder,
and that the Fundamental Rules ·are not applicable to them at all. On
behalf of the respondents it was contended that since the res.,ondents are -r
not governed by the Army or Marine Regulations their conditions of
service must be held to governed by the Fundamental Rules, that the pay
C and allowances of the N.C.C. whole time officers are not paid from Civil
Estimates but from Defence Service Estimates and relying upon paragraph
8 of the terms and conditions, which stated that the officers will be
-
governed by Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, submitted that
the respondents should be treated to be governed by the Civil Services
D Rules prescribing fifty-eight years as the age of retirement.
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment" of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, this Court,

HELD : 1. The National Cadet Crops has been established under
E Section 3 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948. Section 9 authorised the ~
Central Government to provide for appointment of officers, while Section
13 emp~wered the Central Government to make rules to carry out the
object of the Act, and the National Cadet Crops Rules, 1948 were accod-
ingly framed. (264 FJ ·

F 2. The Central Government has full authority to appoint persons on
such terms and conditions. The question of the grant of permanent com- ~-
mission to N.CC. officers emplored on whole time basis was considered
in all relevant aspects and a decision was taken as mentioned in the
Government's letter dated 23rd May, 1980. It was considered desirable that
before a person was granted N.C.C. permanent commis.sion an on oppor-
G tuoity should be given to him to consider the terms and conditions of the
appointment and then indicate his choice by exercising his option in the
form prescribed. The relevant order in clear terms lays down the age of
superannuation at fifty-five years with a further provision of extension of
the age to ,fifty-seven years. The respondents in the instant case, exercised
H their option and were accordingly granted whole time N.C.C. commission.
U.0.1. v. LT. COL KOMAL CHARAN fSHARMA, J.) 261
~ They cannot now repudiate the same and claim any additional benefit A
which they are not entitled to. under any rule or law. [2(i5 B·D]

3. Though there are no statutory rules at all dealing with the age ot
superannuation of the respondents but for that reason the age which is
fb:ed for the civil servants governed by the Fundamental Rules cannot be
brought in. In the absence of a rule to the contrary _the Central Govern· B
ment is fully authorised to rax the age, which it has done and which was
}.-- accepted voluntarily by the respondents. The respondents must therefore
retire when they reach the age or fifty-five years. (265 H-266AJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2449 and
50of1992.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1991 of the Central Ad.-
+ ministrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 1513/90 and 1537of1990.

Altaf Ahmed, Addi. Solicitor General, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. Sush- D
ma Suri and Ms. Kitty Kumarmanglam for the Appellants.

Gobind Mukhoty, V.J. Francis and V. Subramanian for the Respon-
dents.
~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
SHARMA, J. The questions which fall for decision in these cases are
as to whether the officers appointed on whole-time basis in the National
Cadet Corps are governed by the Fundamental Rules applicable to the civil
servants sreving the Union of India and accordingly entitled to continue in
service until the age of fifty-eight years or they retire under the terms and F
conditions of their service as contained in the Government order being
letter dated 23.05.1980. The Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi,
~--
I
by the impugned judgment, has agreed with the respondents that they will
remain in service till they attain the age of fifty-eight years in view of the
provisions in Fundamental Rule 56 (a). G
~ 2. Special leave is granted.

3. The respondents were earlier se~g in the Armed Forces from
1962-67. After the expiry of their tenure they applied for appointment
under the scheme of re-employment of ex-service officers in the National H
)

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A Cadet Corps and they were granted N.C.C. commissions on wholetime
basis. The grant of permanent commission was on the terms and conditions
as laid down in the aforesaid letter dated 23.05.1980 which had inter alia
fixed the age of retirement at fifty-five, and it required the appointees to
exercise their option to accept the same on the aforesaid terms and
B conditions if they so chose. Accordingly they were granted the permanent
commission after they exercised the option as indicated in the letter. When
the dates of their retirement were coming close the respondents filed the
original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal out of
which these appeals have arisen. The Tribunal aggreeing with the respon-
C dents held that they were entitled to continue the service until they attained
the age of fifty-eight, and the service conditions as contained in the letter
dated 23.05.1980 to the contrary were not legally valid.
-
4. The provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (a) which are the basis of
the claim of the respondents read as follows:-
D
"F.R. 56(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every
Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon.
of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of
fifty-eight years."

E It has been contended by Mr. Additional Solicitor General appearing
in support of the appeal that the whole-time officers of N.C.C. are ap-
pointed in accordance with the provisions of the N.C.C. Act and Rules and
the Fundamental Rules are not applicable to them at all. Mr. Mukhoty the
learned counsel for the respondents has, in reply, argued that the N.C.C.
-
F Act and the Rules do not lay down the age of superannuation of such
officers and the Anny Act which prescribes different age of retirement is
not applicable. According to the learned cousel, the result is that the
general rule as contained in Fundamental Rule No.2 must govern the
respondents. '

G 5. As ·indicated above, the decision in the case is dependent on the
question as to whether the Fundamental Rules are applicable to the
respondents or not Having got the permanent commission on the basis of
the letter dated 23.05.1980, it is for the respondents to show that they are
entitled to rely on the Fundamental Rules, including F.R.56 (a) and to
H continue in service till the age of fifty-eight. The extent of applica.tion of
U.0.1. v. LT. COL KOMAL CHARAN [SHARMA, J.] 263

",- the Fundamental Rules has been dealt with in Part 1 chapter 1, and F.R.2 A
declares that,

"The Fundamental Rules apply, subject to the provisions of
Rule 3, to all Government servants whose pay is debitable to
Civil Estimates and to any other class of Government servants
to which the President may, by general or special order, declare B
them to be applicable."

Admittedly the President has not issued any general or special order
extending the Fundamental Rules to the N.C.C. whole-time officers. Point-
ing out· to the reference of Rule 3 in Part 2, Mr. Mukhoty contended that C
since the respondents are not governed by Army or Marine Regulations
their conditions of service must be held to be as under Fundamental Rules.
The learned counselreferred to the provisions of the N.C.C. Act, the Army
Act and certain statements made in the affidavits filed in the present case
in support of his point that the Army or Marine Regulations have no D
application to the respondents. We are afraid, the argument is based on
the assumption that unless Army and Marine Regulations are shown to be
applicable to the holders of a service, the Fundamental Rules will govern
the employees in the service. Fundamental Rule 3, on which reliance has
been placed on behalf of the respondents, is by way of exception, and it E
becomes relevant only where the Fundam.ental .Rules are shown to be
applicable. Only if a particular service is proved to be governed by the
Fundamental Rules that the question of ·its falling within the exception
referred to in F.R.3 can arise and not otherwise. It is, therefore, necessary
first to examine the question whether the Fundamental Rules are at all
applicable to the whole-time officers with permanent commissions in the F
N.C.C. I
6. It appears from the Fundamental Rule No.2, quoted earlier, that
the Fundamental Rules are applicable only to such government servant
whose pay is deb!table to Civil Estimates. It is the case of the appellants G
that the pay and allowances of the N.C.C. whole-time officers are not paid
from Civil Estimates and they are paid from Defence Services Estimates.
Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants before the Tribunal on the
. Explanatory Notes, sub-Head B-National Cadet Corps; in the Defence
Services Extimates for the year 1989-90. The Explanatory Note do support H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A· the appellants' stand, but since the respondents raised certain controversy '"Y"
about the meaning and effect of the said Explanatory Note, we adjourned
the case to enable the parties to file further affidavits dealing with this
question. Accordingly affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellants giving
full details in this regard and in clear and unambiguous terms stating that
B the N.C.C. officers employed on whole-time basis are paid exclusively by
the Central Government from the Defence Services Estimates. This af-
fidavit has been sworn by an Under Secretary c;f the Union of India, who
claims to have access to the official records and has given details dealing
with the question and we do not have any reason to doubt the correctness
of the statement. We, therefore, hold that the pay of the respondents is not
.C debitable to the Civil Estimates, as required by Fundamental Rule 2 for
the application of the Fundamental Rules, and the Fundamental Rules
must, therefore, be held to be not attracted. The Tribunal was, thus, in
error to hold on that basis that the respondents were entitled to remain in
service upto the age of fifty-eight years.
D
7. In view of our conclusion above we do not consider it necessary
to refer to the other provisions of the N.C.C. Act relied upon by Mr.
Mukhoty, and we do not consider it either necessary or relevant to examine
the question whether the Army Act applies· to the respondents or not. In
E support of these appeals Mr. Additional Solicitor General has not placed
any reliance on the Army Act and his contention has been that the
provisions of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, the rules framed there-
under and the letter dated 23.05.80 in pursuance of which the respondents
were granted permanent commission, settled the question. The Corps has
been established under Section 3 of the N.C.C. Act. Section 9 of the Act
F authorises the Central Government lo provide for the appointment of
officers from amongst the members of the staff and university or school or
otherwise. Section 13 of the Act authorises the Central Government to
make rules to carry out the objects of the Act and without prejudice to the
generality of this power to lay down the manner in which and the consdi-
G tions subject to which a person or class of persons may be enrolled under
the Act. Accordingly the Rules described as National Cadet Corps Rules,
1948 were framed. Proviso (iii) in Rule 16 vests the authority concerned
with very wide power in' this regard. Except for Fundamental Rule 56 (a)
relied upon iri·the impugned judgment, it has not been suggested on behalf
H
-;

U.0.1. v. LT. COL. KOMAL CHARAN (SHARMA, J.) 265
Iii

of the respondents that they are entitled to continue in service upto the A
~
age of fifty-eight years on the strength of any other provision. The Central
Government has, therefore, full authority to appoint persons on such terms
and conditions as it may choose to prescribe. The question of grant of
prmanent commission to N.C.C. officers employed on whole-time basis was
considered in all the relevant aspects and a decision was taken as men- B
tioned in the afore-mentioned letter dated 23.05.80 and referred to in the
letter of 24.05.80 sent under the signature of the Under Secretary to the
}-- Govei:nment of India to the Director General, N.C.C., New Delhi (An-
nexure P-4). It was considered desirable that before a person was granted
N.C.C. permanent commission in terms of the above lettt;r an opportunity

- should be given to him to consider the terms and conditions of the
appointment and then indiciate his choice by exercising his option in the
form prescribed in Appendix B to the letter. The relevant order in clear
terms lays down the age of superannuation at fifty-five years with a further
c

provision of extension to the age of fifty-seven years.
D
The respondents exercised their option and were accordingly granted
whole-time N.C.C. commission. They cannot now repudiate the same and
claim any additional benefit which they are not entitled to under any rule
or law.
)._. E
8. Mr. Mukhoty relied upon paragraph 8 of the terms and condition-;
stating that the officers will be governed by Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1972 as amended from time to time and contended that in view of
these provisions tire respondents should be treated to be governed by the
Civil Services Rules prescribing fifty-eight years as the age of retirement.
The argument is fallacious. Paragraph 8 makes a limited application of the
F
-~ Civil Services Rules in regard to pension only and cannot be held to have
rendered the provisions of paragraph 5 fixing in clear and express terms
the age of superannuation as fifty-five years nugatory. Mr. Mukhoty also
urged that since the Rules framed under Section 13 of the N.C.C. Act do
not fix the age of retirement of the respondents, they cannot be retired at G
the age of fifty-five years. We do not find any logic in this plea. It is true
-< there are no statutory rules at all dealing with the age of superannuation
of the.respondents but for that reaspn the age which is fixed for the civil
servants governed by the Fundamental Rules cannot be brought in. In the
absence of a rule to the contrary, the Central Government is fully H
A
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

authorised to fix the age which it has done and which was accepted '-y'
-
voluntarily by the respondents. They must now retire when they reach tlie
age of fifty-five years.

9. For the reasons above, the impugned judgment of the Central
Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the· Original Applications filed
B before the Tribunal by the respondents are dismissed. The appeal is
accordingly allowed but without costs.

N.V.K. _Appeals allowed.

--
. __...