Holding

A Commandant (Selection Grade) is not a post higher than a Commandant for the purposes of Rule 9 and therefore the respondent must retire at the age of 55 years.

Summary

The Union of India and the Director General of the Border Security Force sought to retire S.S. Ranade, a Commandant (Selection Grade), upon attaining 55 years of age. Ranade contended that his post was a higher rank than a regular Commandant under Rule 9 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation) Rules, 1978, and therefore entitled to the higher retirement age of 58 years. The Court examined the nature of the Selection Grade, noting that it was created solely to provide a higher pay scale for officers performing the same duties as ordinary Commandants, without any additional responsibilities. It held that the term "promotion" in Rules 6 and 7 referred to a higher pay scale within the same post, not a promotion to a higher post, and that seniority listings do not alter the substantive rank of the post. Consequently, a Commandant (Selection Grade) does not qualify for the higher retirement age and must retire at 55. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court judgment.

Issues considered

Whether a Commandant (Selection Grade) in the Border Security Force is a post higher than a Commandant for the purposes of Rule 9, thereby attracting a retirement age of 58 years.
Whether the provisions of Rules 3, 6 and 7 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1978, which speak of promotion and seniority, convert a Selection Grade post into a higher rank post.

Legislation cited

Border Security Force Act, 1968s. 141, s. 2(f)

Subjects

Border Security ForceSelection GradeRetirement ageSuperannuationRule 9PromotionSeniorityService LawInterpretation of statutesAdministrative law

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
-~ v.
S.S. RANADE

APRIL 25, 1995

[S.C. AGRAWAL AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] B

Service Law :
.J
_,..J Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of
Officers) Rules, 1978.
c
Rule 9-Superannuation-Retiremeht age of officers-Commandant
(Selection Grade)-Not a higher post than that of Commandant-Hence not
entitled to higher age of superannuation.

The appellant in order to alleviate the degree and extent of stagna-
·tion among the officers' cadre by its letter dated 23rd February, 1991 gave
D
its approval to the creation of 123 posts of Commandants in the Selection
Grade of Rs. 1800 fixed whieh has been subsequently revised to Rs.
4100-5300 for Commandant and Rs. 4500-5700 for Commandant (Selection
Grade).
E
The appellant by his communication dated 26th June 1990 set out in
paragraph 2 the revised cadre strength of officers of the Border Security
Force.

The respondent is an officer of the Border Security Force holding
the post of Commandment (Selection Grade). The appellants. sought to F
retire the respondent on his attaining the · age of 55 years. This was
challenged by the respondent before the High Court where he was success-
ful. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the appellants preferred the
present appeal.

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that, at all material G
times, he was holding the post of Commandant (Selection Grade) which,
is a rank higher than that of a Commandant vide Rule 9 of the Border
+
Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of officers)
Rules, 1978; that Rule 6 clearly provides that a Commandant (Selection
Grade) alone is eligible for promotion to the rank of Additional Deputy H
773
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R.

A Inspector General; that Rule 7 provides for the constitution of a
Departmental promotion committre; that both these provisions indicate
that a Commandant (Selection Grade) is a higher post in the hierarchy or
r
posts than a Commandant; and that Rule 3 provides that all Comman·
dants (Selection Grade) are placed above Commandants which indicates
that the Commandants) (Selection Grade) hold a higher post than Com.
B mandants.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that a Commandant
(Selection Grade) holds the same post as a Commandant. Hence the
retirement age of the respondent is 55 years;
c Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The post or Commandant (Selection Grade) was intro·
duced additional duties have been prescribed anywhere for a Commandant
(Selection Grade) who performs the same duties as Commandants. Both
D the posts are put together at Serial No. 6 in paragraph 2 ofthe.,ommunica-
tion dated 26th June. 1,990. [779-C, 778-D)

1.2. For the purpose of Rule 9 of the Border Security Force (Seniority
promotion and Superannuation of officers) Rules, the Respondent dqes
E not hold a post higher in rank than that of a Commandant in order to get
the benefit of a higher age of supperanuation. To attract rule 9, the post
inust be ·a post higher than that or a Commandant, with higher respon·
sibilities and higher pay scale and not the same post with a higher pay
scale. [779-G-H, 780-A)

F 2.1. Undoubtedly, a Commandant (Selection Grade) secures a
Promotion to a higher pay scale. But it is a higher pay scale in the same
post. The use or the word 'promotion' in Rule 6 and the constitution or a
Departmental Promotion Committee for selection of Commandant (Selec·
tion Grade) in Rule 7 do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the
G promotion which is contemplated there is necessarily a promotion to a
higher post. [780-H, 781 ·A)

2.2. In the seniority list, a higher rank may be allotted to an officer
for various reasons. One cannot, however, say that a person who holds a
higher rank in the seniority list thereby occupies a higher post. Roles 3, 6
H and 7 may be read in the context of a selection grade providing promotion
~\

U.0.1. v. S.S. RANADE [SUJATA V. MANO HAR, J.] 775

.,
\
to a higher pay scale in the same post. (781-C) A
23. Rule 9 provides a hierarchy of posts. Holders of all posts upto
and including the level of Commandant retire at the age of 55 years.
Holders of posts above that of Commandant retire at the age of 58 years.
In order to decide whether a post is either equivalent or is higher or lower
than another post, one cannot look only at the pay scale of the post. One B
must also look at the duties and responsibilities that attach to such posts.
By its very nature a selection grade post cannot be considered as a higher
post for the purposes of Rule 9. (781-E, 782-F)

Lalit Mohan Deb and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, (1973) 3 SCC C
862, relied on .

. Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (1984)
3 sec 36, referred to.

CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5110 of D
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.94 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No.5042 of 1993.

K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, P. Parmeswaran and E
A.S.Bhamse for the Appellants.

K.B. Rohtgi and K.K. Rohatgi and Ms. Aparna Rohatgi (Cav) for
j the Respondent.

S.S. Ranade, Caveator in Person. F

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted.

This is an appeal filed by the Union of India and the Director G
General, Border Security Force, New Delhi against a decision of the Delhi
High Court dated 25.8.1994 in CWP No. 5042. of 1993 which was filed by
the respondent against the appellants. The point in issue between the
parties relates to the age of retirement of a Commandant (Selection Grade)
in the Border Security Force. H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

.A The constitution and regulation of an Armed Force of the Union for
ensuring the security of the borders of India and matters connected there-
with, are governed by the provisions of the Border Security Force Act,
1968. Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act enables the Central
Government, by notification, to make rules for the purpose of carrying into
B effect the provisions of this Act as set out in that section. In exercise of
that power, the Central Government has notified the Border Security Force
(Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of officers) Rules, 1978. It has
also notified the Border Security Force Rules of 1969. Under Rule 9 of the
Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of of-
ficers) Rules, 1978, it is provided as follows:-
c
"9. (Superannuation) - Retirement age of officers holding a rank
higher than that of Commandant shall be fifty eight years; and for
officers of the other rank it shall be fifty five years.

Provided that... .............. ".
D
It is contended by the respondent that at all material times, he was holding
the post of Commandant (Selection Grade) which, according to hiin, is a
rank higher than that of a Commandant. Hence his age of retirement is 58
years under Rule 9. On the other hand, the appellants contend that a
E Commandant (Selection Grade) holds the same post as a Commandant.
Hence the retirement age for the respondent is 55 years. Accordingly, the
appellants sought to retire the respondent on his attaining the age of 55
years. This was challenged by the respondent in the above writ petition
where his contentions have been upheld.

F We have to consider whether a Commandant (Selection Grade) can
be considered as holding a "rank" higher than that of a Commandant for
the purposes of Rule 9 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion
and Superannuation of officers) Rules, 1978. Since Rule 9 uses the term
"rank", we can examine, at the outset, the list of "ranks" under the Border
G Security Force Rules, 1%9. Under Rule 14A of the Border Security Force
Rules, 1969 the ranks of officers and other members of the Border Security
Force are classified into various categories. This Rule provides as follows:-

"14A Ranks:

H (1) The officers and other members of the Farce shall be classified
I

U.O.l. v. S.S. RANADE.[SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 777

in accordance with their ranks in the following categories, namely:- A
(a) Officers

( 1) Director General

(2) Addi. Director General B
(3) Inspector General

(4) Deputy Inspector General

(5) Additional Deputy Inspector General
c
(6) Commandant

(7) Deputy Commandant

(8) Assistant Commandant
D
(b) Subordinate Officers

There is no separate category of Commandant (Selection Grade). It is an
accepted position that till 1981 there were no posts of Commandant E
(Selection Grade). In a Confidential Npte which was prepared in 1981 by
the Directorate General of the Border Security Force in connection with
cadre review of the gazetted establishment in the Border Security Force,
it was pointed out that for historical reasons, the Border Security Force
had to induct en masse Ex-emergency Commission Officers and other F
Service Commission Officers released from the Army. As many as 448
officers of about the same seniority and age group joined the Border
Security Force practically together, upsetting normal recruitment plans of
a duly organised service which would normally recruit about 30/40 Officers
per year. This sudden recruitment of a large number of officers of the same
seniority had caused unprecedented stagnation in the category, inter alia, G
of Commandants. The Directorate, therefore, recommended some interim
measures to alleviate the degree and extent of stagnation among the
. officers, cadre of this force. One of the measures which was recommended
and subsequently adopted was creation of a selection grade for Comman-
dants. H
I

778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A The Government of India by its letter dated 23rd February, 1981 ,.
conveyed to the Director General of the Border Security Force, in connec-
tion with cadre review for Group 'A' posts in the Border Security Force,
its approval, inter alia, to the creation of 123 posts of Commandants in the
Selection Grade of Rs. 1800 fJXed; the quantum of special pay and com-
B pensatory allowance then admissible and conditions therefor would remain
unchanged. The above 123 posts were in lieu of the existing 123 ordinary
posts of Commendant in the Border Security Force. The letter also ac-
cepted upgradation of various other posts which are not relevant here. As
a result, instead of the existing 123 ordinary posts of Commandants, 123
posts of Commandants (Selection Grade) came into existence. The pay
C scale which was sanctioned was a fixed pay of Rs. 1800 as against the pay
scale of Rs. 1200-1700 fixed for a Commandant. The pay scale has been
subsequently revised to Rs. 4100-5300 for a Commandant and Rs. 4500-
5700 for a Commandant (Selection Grade).

In 1990 there was a second cadre review for Group 'A' posts as a
D result of which the number of posts of Commandant (Selection Grade)
were increased to 185. The revised cadre strength is set out in paragraph
2 of the communication dated 26 of June, 1990 from the Government of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Director General, Border Security
Force. The material portions of paragraph 2 are as follows:-
E SI. No. of posts
Name of the post/Rank
No. sanction~d

1. Director General (Rs. 8000 fixed) 1
2. Additional Director General (Rs. 7300-7600) 1
3. Inspector General (Rs. 5900-6700) 13
F
4. Deputy Inspector General/Deputy Director (Rs.
46
5100-6150)
5. Additional Deputy Inspector General/Additional
Deputy Director (Rs. 4500-5700 + Special pay of 38
G Rs. 200)

6. Commandant/Assistant Director :
Selection Grade - 185 (Rs. 4500-5700)
223
Ordinary Grade - 38 (Rs. 4100-5300)
7. Second-in-Command (Rs. 4100-5300) 139
H
., I
8.
U.0.1. v. S.S. RANADE [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.]

Deputy Commandant/Joint Assistant Director (Rs.
785
779

A
3000-4500)
9. Assistant Commandant (duty posts) (Rs. 2200-4000) 1111
10. Deputation Reserve in the rank of Assistant
96
Commandant
Probationers Reserve. in the rank of Assistant B
11. 93
Commandant
Total 2546

From the above documents it is clear that the post of Commandant
(Selection Grade) was introduced with a view to prevent stagnation of a C
large number of officers in the post of Commandant and to give them a
higher scale of pay. No additional duties have been prescribed anywhere
for a Commandant (Selection Grade). Commandants (Selection Grade)
perform the same duties as Commandants. Both the posts are put together
at serial no. 6 above in the same category.
D
A Commandant is defined under Section 2(f) of the Border Security
Force Act, 1968 to mean "the officer whose duty it is under the rules to
discharge with respect to that unit, (any unit of the Force) the functions of
a Commandant in regard to matters of description referred to in that
provision". The Border Security Force Manual, Volume-IV prescribes in E
paragraph 45(a) the duties of a Commandant. It sets out that a Comman-
dant is responsible for the sound administration, economy, training, wel-
) fare, conduct, upkeep of morale and efficiency of all ranks nnder
command. He is responsible for the upkeep and security of confidential
correspondence, correspondence with higher headquarter, through F
second-in-command control and audit of accounts, management of
Regimental Institntions; throngh Adjutant maintenance of discipline,
utilisation of manpower, office management and so on. No separate duties
are provided for Commandant (Selection Grade). Commandant and Com-
mandant (Selection Grade), therefore, perform the same functions. If this
is so, it is not possible to hold that for the purpose of Rule 9 of the Border G
Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of officers)
Rules, 1978, a Commandant (Selection Grade) holds a post higher in rank
than that of a Commandant in order to get the benefit of a higher age of
superannuation. To attract Rule 9, the post must be a post higher than that
of a Commandant, with higher responsibilities and higher pay scale and H
)

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A not the same post with a higher pay scale.
The respondent has, however, relied upon certain other provisions
of the said Rules in support of his contention that Commandant (Selection
Grade) is a post which is higher in rank than that of a Commandant. He
has drawn our attention to Rule 6 of the Boarder Security Force (Seniority,
B Promotion and Superannuation of officers) Rules, 1978 as amended by the
Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Of-
ficers) Amendment Rules, 1989. Rule 6 deals with the eligibility of officers
of promotion. Sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 6 are as follows :-

"6(4) - A Commandant, who has put a minimum of two years
c service in the rank of Commandant and has put in a minimum
sixteen years Group 'A' service, shall be eligible for promotion to
the rank of Commandant (Selection Grade).

(5) A Commandant (Selection Grade) who has put in a minimum
D of eighteen years group 'A' service out of which a minimum of two
years as a Commandant (Selection Grade), shall be eligible for
promotion to the rank of Additional Deputy Inspector General."

It is submitted by learned Advocate for the respondent that this Rule
E clearly provides that a Commandant is eligible for promotion to the ranks
of Commandant (Selection Grade) and a Commandant (Selection Grade)
alone is eligible for prom<Jtion to the rank of Additional Deputy Inspector
General. Rule 7 provides for the constitution of a Committee to make
selections or promotions under Rule 6. Rule 7 as amended in 1989 provides
for the constitution of a Departmental Promotion Committee for selection
F of officers to the rank of Deputy Commandant, Second-in-Command,
Commandant, Commandant (Selection Grade), Additional Deputy Inspec-
tor General and Deputy Inspector General. Both these provisions are
strongly relied upon by the respondent as indicating that a Commandant
(Selection Grade) is a higher post in the hierarchy of posts than a Com-
G mandant.

This submission is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by
Selection Grade. Undoubtedly, a Commandant who becomes a Comman-
dant (Selection Grade) secures a promotion to a higher pay scale. But it
is a higher pay scale in the same post. The use of the word 'promotion' in
H Rule 6 and the constitution of a Departmental Promotion Committee for
U.0.L v. S.S. RANADE [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 781
-"<
selection of Commandant (Selection Grade) in Rule 7, do not necessarily A
lead to the conclusion that the promotion which is contemplated there is
necessarily a promotion to a higher post. Promotion can be either to a
'
~ higher pay scale or to a higher post. These two Rules and the use of the
word 'promotion' there do not conclude the issue.

The respondent has also relied upon Rule 3 of the said Rules dealing B
• _.-../
with the seniority of officers. In the seniority all Commandants (Selection
Grade) are placed above Commandants. According to the respondent, this
would indicate that the Commandants (Selection Grade) hold a higher post
than Commandants. This submission also must be rejected. In the seniority
list, a higher rank may be allotted to an officer for various reasons. One c
cannot, however, say that a person who holds a higher rank in the seniority
list thereby occupies a higher post. In our view, Rules 3, 6 and 7 must be
read in the context of a selection grade providing promotion to a higher
pay sacle in the same post. These Rules are consisten\ with the interpreta-
tlon of a Selection Grade post as granting the benefit of higher pay to the
l officers holding the same post. D
'
Rule 9 provides a hierarchy of posts. Holders of all posts upto and
including the level of Commandant retire at the age of 55 years. Holders
of posts above that of a Commandant retire at the age of 58 years. In order
to decide whether a post is either equivalent or is higher or lower than
E
another post, 'one cannot look only at the pay scale for that post. One must
also look at the duties and responsibilities that attach to such posts.

). In the case of La/it Mohan Deb and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,
(1963) 3 SCC 862 this Court ronsidered the position of Assistant in the
Civil Secretariat, Tripura as against the position of Assistant (Selection F
Grade). This Court held that the administration can provide two scales of
pay in the same category of posts. Provision of Selection Grade in the same
category of posts is not a new thing. It is normally done with the object of
providing incentive to employees who have no outlets or very limited
outlets for promo.tion to higher posts. It has observed (at page 866) :-
G
, .. "It is well recognised that a promotion post is a higher post with
a higher pay. A selection grade has higher pay but in the same
post. A selection grade is intended to ensure that capable
employees who may not get a chance of promotion on account of
limited outlets of promotion; should at least be placed in the .. H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A selection grade to prevent stagnation on the maximum of the scale.
Selection grades are, therefore, created in the interest of greater
efficiency."

The ratio of this case applies directly to the present case where the raison
d'etre for creating selection grade posts in the cadre of Commandants is
B identical, namely, prevention of stagnation and providing an incentive to
employees or officers who do not have any outlet or have very limited
outlets for promotion to higher posts because of the special circumstances
•
set out earlier.

C In the case of Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra
and Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 36 this Court was required to consider, inter alia,
the position of District Judge (Selection Grade) in the cadre of District
Judges in the State of Maharashtra. This Court held that the selection
grade post did not constitute a separate cadre from that of the District
Judge, nor was it a post to which promotion had to be made, nor did it
D involve an element of selection.

In the present case, an element of selection is involved in granting
selection grade because there is no automatic promotion to the selection
grade pay scale. But this factor is not decisive. In the present cas~ also, as
E in the above cases, Selection Grade posts are created entirely for the
purpose of granting some relief to those who have very limited avenues of
getting promotion to a higher post. That is why a higher pay or pay scale
is granted in the same post. Thus, by its very nature, a selection grade post
cannot be considered as a higher post for the purposes of Rule 9.

F The High Court in its impugned judgment has referred to Article
311(2) of the Constitution. It has considered how different posts in the Civil
service of the Union or the States or All-India services are compared or
ranked with referenee to one another in order to ascertain whether, in a
given case, there is reduction in rallk under Article 311(2) by transfer from
one post to another post. In this connection the High Court has emphasised
G that posts carrying different designations and different duties may be
considered equivalent in rank if they are in the same pay scale. In this
context pay scale may be a good yardstick for measuring ranks. But this
has no application to selection grade posts. Because the creation of a
selection grade in the same post stands on a very different footing. By its
H very nature a selection grade provides a higher pay or a higher pay scale
U.0.1. v. S.S. RANADE [SUJA"J:A V. MANO HAR, J.] 783
•
in the same post. The beneficiary of a selection grade does not thereby A
occupy a post which is higher in rank than the post earlier occupied by
him.

It is also pointed out by the appellants that if a selection grade is
considered as a different post of a higher rank, and a higher age of
retirement is prescribed for a Selection Grade post, that would defeat the B
very purpose of creating such posts. A higher retirement age would add to
stagnation at that level and block promotions for others. The appellants
have also relied upon a direction issued by them on 17th of September,
1981 in which it is pointed out that an officer of the rank of Commandant
(Selection Grade) is entitled to wear the State Emblem with one star and C
not with two stars. So is a Commandant. We are informed that in this
connection, litigation is pending in the J & K High Court. Pursuant to
certain interim orders, a Commandant (Selection Grade) is permitted to
wear two stars. In the Border Security Force Manna! for 1991, paragraph
26 which deals with badges of rank, provides as follows:-
D
"26. Badges of Ranks.

(d) Ads, HQ The State Emblem and two stars
DGBSF
E
Frontiers and
DISG and Comdts
(SG) of BNs (Entitled to wear)

F
The appellants have explained that only those Commandants (Selection
Grade) are permitted to wear two stars who are entitled to wear the same.
The appellants have explained that officers from the Army, Indian Police
Service and State Police were taken on deputation for manning senior posts
in the Border Security Force. Those officers who were entitled to wear two G
stars and State Emblem in their parent organisation are permitted to wear
them. The Manual does not provide for the wearing of two stars and the
j State Emblem by Commandants (Selection Grade) who are otherwise not
entitled to do so. In any event, looking to the instrnctions issued as far back
as in 1981 and the resultant litigation, this aspect throws little light on the H
r

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A question before us .
. Iu the premises, for the reasons which we have set out above, a ~
Commandant (Selection Grade) does not get the benefit of a higher age ',
of retirement under Rule 9. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order
of the High Court dated 25.8.1994 is set aside. The appellants are entitled
B to retire the respondent on his completing the age of 55 years. The
appellants, however, shall not recover from the respondent any emolu-
ments received by him during his continuance beyond the age of 55 years
as a result of any orders of this Court or the Delhi High Court. There will
be no order as to costs.
c v.s.s. Appeal allowed.