Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusBRAHMA DUTI TRIPATHI
- Citation
- 2006 INSC 627
- Decided
- 18 September 2006
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- H K SEMA
Holding
The respondent was appointed under the Scheme framed under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the NCC Rules, a tenure appointment, and the Union was not bound to extend his service to the age of 45.
Summary
Brahma Dutt Tripathi, a former Short Service Commission officer, was appointed to the National Cadet Corps (NCC) on 11 December 1969 under a composite Scheme issued on 21 December 1963, which was framed under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the NCC Rules, 1948. He later challenged an order that declined to extend his service beyond 10 December 1979, arguing that under Section 9 of the NCC Act he was entitled to serve until the age of 45. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court had set aside the order and granted him the benefit. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that his appointment was not made under the Act but under the Scheme, which provided a tenure appointment of three years, extendable, and terminable at the Government's discretion, with a maximum age of 55. Consequently, the Union was not obligated to extend his service to age 45, and the earlier orders were set aside. The appeal was allowed, dismissing the respondent’s petition.
Issues considered
- The nature of the respondent's appointment: whether it was under the National Cadet Corps Act and Rules (Section 9) or under the Scheme framed under proviso (iii) to Rule 16.
- Whether the Scheme, being a tenure appointment, could be terminated before the respondent reached the age of 45.
- Whether the executive Scheme was ultra vires the statutory provisions of the NCC Act and Rules.
- The proper interpretation of the phrase ‘or otherwise’ in Section 9 of the NCC Act.
Subjects
Service lawNational Cadet CorpsAppointmentTenure appointmentShort Service CommissionStatutory interpretationSection 9Rule 16ProvisoExtension of serviceAdministrative law
Judgment
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
BRAHMA DUTI TRIPATHI
SEPTEMBER I 8, 2006
[H.K. SEMA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B
Service Law.
National Cadet Corps Act, 1948-Sections 2, 3, 4, 9 and 13-Discharged C
Short Service Commission Officer-(;overnment .framing Scheme under proviso
(iii) to Rule I 6 for appointment of such officers-Scheine laying down terms
and conditions of scheme and conditions of service-Scheme providing
appointment for 3 years extendable by another 3 years at a time subject to
requirement of service but not beyond 55 years-Appointment in National
Cadet Corps-Extension of service declined-Challenged-Whether
appointment under NCC Act and Rules or Scheme formulated by Government
under proviso (iii) to Rule I 6-Held, there is no provision under NCC Act and
Rules for appointment of discharged Short Service .Commission Officer and
appointment only under Scheme formulated by Government-Such appointment
was tenure appointment-Officer himself accepting appointment under
Scheme-Jn the facts, termination of service upheld-NCC Rules, 1948.c.....
Proviso (iii) to Rule I 6.
Respondent was Short Service Commission Officer commissioned as
2.... Lieutenant during Chinese Aggression in 1963 and was released from·
Indian Army with effect from 31.3.1969. He was appointed under Scheme
floated by Government of India for rehabilitation of Short Service.
Commission Officers in the Army and joined National Cadet Corps (NCC)
on I 1.12.1969. The Scheme of21.12.1963 was issued under proviso (iii) to
Rule 16 of NCC Rules, 1948. The said Rules were framed by the Central
Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 13 of the National
Cadet Corps Act, 1948. Appellant passed order dated 30. 11.1979 declining
to grant extension of service to respondent beyond 10.12.1979 which was
challenged by respondent. Central Administrative Tribunal set aside Order
dated 30.11.1979 and directed that respondent be accorded benefit by
treating the age of superannuation at 45 years with all other consequential
benefits, which was also. affirmed by Division Bench of the High Court.
359
360 SliPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A Hence this appeal by the Union of India.
Respondent contended that he was appointed under Section 9 of the
NCC Act and Rules and not under Scheme formulated by Govi:rnment
of India in exercise of powers under proviso (iii) to Ruic 16 of NCC Rules,
1948 and was entitled to continue till he attained the age of 45 years.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:l.1. There is no provision under the NCC Rules, 1948 and
National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 providing for appointment of discharged
Short Service Commission Officer as an officer in the NCC, save and
C except, as provided by the Scheme floated under proviso (iii) to Rule 16.
1368-H; 369-AI
J.2. The Scheme under which the respondent was appointed was a
composite Scheme laying down the terms and conditions of the Scheme
and the conditions of service. The composite Scheme was framed under
D proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the NCC Rules, by the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence letter of 21.12.1963. Under the Scheme, the
appointment was a tenure appointment and the service was for three years
extendable by another three years at a time, subject to the requirement
of the service but not beyond the age of 55 years. The service might also
E be terminated at any time before the completion of the initial or extended
tenure at the discretion of the Government of India in terms of Clause 4
of Appendix 8 of the Scheme. (364-D-H]
2.1. The contention of the respondent deserves to be rejected for
more than one reason. Firstly, the respondent accepted the appointment
F under the memorandum issued by the Government of India and the
Scheme framed thereunder with its terms and conditions categorically laid
down thereunder, without any demur. Secondly, it was never the case of
the respondent that he was appointed under the Act, more particularly
under Section 9 of the Act. Thirdly, Section 9 provides for appointment
of officers in or any unit of the corps either from amongst the members
G of the staff of any university or school or otherwise. The Scheme of the
Act would go to show that the appointment of officers as provided under
Section 9 of the Act is from amongst the members of the corps. It is not
disputed that the respondent was not a member of the corps. It is also
clear that his appointment was not made in terms of the provision of
H Section 9 of the Act. Fourthly, the Office Memorandum and the Scheme,
U.0.1. v. BRAHMA DUTT TRIPA THI 361
under which the respondent ~as appointed was never challenged by him. A
Fifthly, the respondent has accepted the appointment under the Scheme
with the terms and conditions without any demur and it does not lie in
his mouth to say that he was not appoint'!d under the Scheme but under
the Act. (363-F-G; 364-A, B, C(
Union of India and Another v. Lt. CoL Koma/ Charan and Ors.. (1992( B
Supp 3 SCC, 186 relied on.
2.2. The letter under the heading "Grant of NCC Commission"
addressed to the respondent also referred to the order dated 21.12.1963
and the Scheme framed thereunder under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the C
Rules. The offer letter of 19.9.1969 with the terms and conditions was
accepted by the respondent by its letter dated 13.10.1969. It was to the
knowledge of the respondent himself that he was appointed under the
composite Scheme framed in exercise of the power under proviso (iii) to
Rule 16. (365-C-H; 366-A-C(
D
2.3. In terms of the aforesaid Scheme, the application form was also
annexure as annexure to Appendix 'A'. The title reads: "Application for
appointment as an officer under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of NCC Rules."
The application form was issued under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the Rules.
The respondent, knowing the terms and conditions stipulated therein, had E
filled up the application form. (365-A, Bl
3. The appointment of the respondent was a tenure appointment
pursuant to the Scheme devised under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the Rules.
The service of the respondent was extended from time to time. It was to
the knowledge of the respondent himself that his appointment was a tenure F
appointment, extendable from time to time. He has not raised any
grievance against this before any authority. (368-F, G(
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5750 of2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.2003 of the High Court of G
Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10140/1998.
Yikas Singh, A.S.G., Binu Tamta and Sushma Suri for the Appellants.
G.D. Gupta and Shiva Kumar Sinha for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A H.K. SEMA, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 19th
February 2003 ·passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21805 of 2003, affirming the
judgment and order of 14th July. 1997 passed in T.A. No. 551 of 1987 by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the order of 30th November,
B 1979 declining further extension of service of the respondent beyond 10th
December, 1979 was set aside. The Tribunal further directed that the
respondent be accorded the benefit by treating the age of superannuation at
45 years with all other consequential benefits. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal
is filed by the Union of India.
C The respondent, Brahma Dutt Tripathi, was a Short Service Commission
Officer commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant during the Chinese Aggression in
1963. He was released from the Indian Army with effect from 31.3.1969. He
applied for Commission in National Cadet Corps (NCC). He was appointed
under the Scheme floated by the Government of India for rehabilitation of
Short Service Commission Officers in the Army and he joined the NCC on
D 11.12.1969. The Scheme of 21.12.1963 was issued under provisio (iii) to
Rule 16 of NCC Rules. 1948. The Scheme under which the respondent was
appointed was a composite Scheme. We will deal with the Scheme at an
appropriate time.
E Be that as it may, he challenged the impugned order of 30.11.1979
passed by the Union of India declining to grant extension of his service
beyond 10.12.1979 before the High Court of.Judicature at Allahabad which
was transferred to the Tribunal and was re-numbered as T.A. No. 551 of
1987. As already noticed, he was granted Commission in the NCC on
11.12.1969 as 2nd Lieutenant and as Lieutenant from 12.1.1968.
F
It appears the principal contention raised before the Tribunal was that
the respondent was appointed under the provisions of NCC Rules, 1948
(hereinafter 'the Rules') which laid down the period of service upto the age
of 45 years and since there is no provision under the Ru Jes for granting
G permission for fixed tenure, the Uni<....i of India is under an obligation to
allow him to work upto the age of 45 years and therefore. the order declining
to extend the service of the respondent prior to the completion of 45 years
is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the
executive order issued by the Government of India by its letter dated
21.12.1963 could not over-ride the statutory Rules, and the administrative
H instructions. to the extent inconsistent with the Rules, are ultra vires the
lJ.0.1. v. BRAHMA DUTT TRIPA THI [H.K.SEfvlA . .I.] 363
Constitution being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A
The short question which arises for our consideration is, as to whether
the appointment of the respondent to the NCC Commission was in accordance
with the ~CC Act and Rules or under a composite Scheme formulated by the
Government of India in exercise of its powers under proviso (iii) to Rule 16
~~~~ B
To answer the aforesaid question, it is essential to make a quick survey
of a few Sections of the Act namely the National Cadets Corps Act, 1948
(Act 31 of 1948) (in short 'the Act'.) and the Rules framed thereunder. Section
2 deals with the definition of Corps. It says ''corps" mans the National Cadet C
Corps constituted under this Act. Section 3 deals with the "Constitution of
the National Cadet Corps". Section 4 deals with the "Constitution and
disbandment of units" and provides: "The Central Government may constitute
in any [State] one or more units of the Corps members of which shall be
recruited from amongst the students of any university or school, and may
disband or reconstitute any unit so constituted." D
Section 9 deals with the "Appointment of officers." It reads, "Th~ Central
Government may provide for the appointment of officers in or for any unit
of the Corps either from amongst members of the staff of any university or
scl:ool or otherwise and may prescribe the duties, powers and functions of E
suc.h officers."
At this stage, we may dispose of the principal contention of Mr. G.D.
Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. He strenuously
urged that Section 9 of the Act deals with the source of appointment of the
officers. It is his contention that the appointment of the respondent to the F
NCC streams from the source of Section 9 and it cannot be said that the
appointment of the respondent is made under the executive order in exercise
of proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the Rules. This contention deserves to be
rejected for more than one reason. Firstly, the respondent accepted the
appointment under the memorandum issued by the Government of India and
the Scheme framed thereunder with its terms and conditions categoricallv G
laid down thereunder, without any demur. Secondly, it was n..:ver th; case ~f
the respondent that he was appointed under the Act, more particularly under -
Section 9 of the Act. Thirdly, Section 9 provides for appointment of officers
in or any unit of the corps either from amongst the members of the staff of
any university or school or otherwise. Mr. G.D. Gupta, learned counsel H
appearing for the respondent strenuously urged that the words, 'or otherwise'
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A is relatable to the appointment from outside other than staff of any university
or school. This is a misreading of the Section. The Scheme of the Act would
go to show that the appointment of officers as provided under Section 9 of
the Act is from amongst the members of the corps. Section 9, thus read with
the scheme of the Act, would mean that the word 'otherwise' employed in
B Section 9 of the Act is relatable to any members of the corps other than staff
of any university or school. Even a student who is a member of the corps
could be appointed. In the present case. it is not disputed that the respondent
was not a member of the corps. It is also clear that his appointment was not
made in terms of the provision of Section 9 of the Act. Fourthly, the Office
Memorandum and the Scheme, under which the respondent was appointed
C was never challenged by him. Fifthly, the respondent has accepted the
appointment under the Scheme with the terms and conditions without any
demur and it does not lie in his mouth to say that he was not appointed under
Scheme but under the Act.
The Scheme under which the respondent was appointed was a composite
D Scheme laying down the terms and conditions of the Scheme and the conditions
of service. The composite Scheme was framed under proviso (iii) to Rule 16
of the Rules, by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter of
21.12.1963. Appendix 'A' deals, amongst others, with the age of the applicant.
It reads:
E
"(iii) Age on date of application should not be less than 21 and not
more than 51 years."
Clause 4 of the Appendix A reads:
"4. Officers will ordinarily hold commission until reaching an age of
F 55 years. An officer may be discharged earlier if his/her services are
not required."
Appendix 'B' appended to the Government order deals with the terms
and conditions of officers granted NCC Commission. Clause 4 of Appendix
G 'B' deals with 'Tenure'. It reads:
"4. The nornml tenure of appointment for those officers who are retained
beyond the probationary period will be three years extendable by three years
at a time for so long as their services are required but not beyond the age of
55 years. Their services may be terminated at any time before the completion
H of the initial or extended tenure at the discretion of the Government of India
U.0.1. v. BRAHMA DUTT TRIPATHI [H.K.SEMA, J.] 365
in tenns of the NCC Act and Rules framed thereunder from time to time." A
In tenns of the aforesaid Scheme, the application fonn was also annexed
as annexure to Appendix 'A'. The title reads: ..Application for appointment
as an officer under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of NCC Rules." Amongst others,
the application was to be filled up giving particulars regarding No., Rank,
Name in fuf I, Arm/Service and Unit, stating fonnation and command under B
which serving and Date of Commission etc. The application fonn was issued
under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the Rules. The respondent, knowing the
tenns and conditions stipulated therein, had filled up the application form.
Another unimpeachable document is the letter dated 19.9.1969 under
the heading "Grant of NCC Commission" addressed to the respondent. The C
said letter aiso referred to the order dated 21.12.1963 and the Scheme framed
thereunder under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the Rules. The letter has referred
to the terms and conditions laid down in Annexure 'A'. Para 5 of the letter
reads:
"Please intirr.ate your acceptance of the tenns and conditions of service
D
as mentioned above earliest. If no reply is received from you by IO
Oct. 69, it will be assumed that you are not interested in the grant of
NCC Commission and your case will be treated as closed."
The offer letter of 19.9.1969 with the tenns and conditions was accepted E
by the respondent by its letter dated 13.10.1969. The letter reads:
"From Capt. B.D. Tripathi
GROUP CENTRE
Central Reserve Police
AV ADI-MADRAS-SS F
13 October 1969
To
The Director General
NCC, New Delhi
G
SUB: GRANT OF NCC COMMISSION
Ref: Your No. 543 l/EC-57159/83/NCC/
COORD(o) dated 08 October 1969
H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A Sir,
With due respect I beg to inform you that the terms and conditions
B
of NCC Commission are accepted as asked for, under para 5 of your
letter of even No. dated 19 September 1969.
You are further requested to send to me offer of appointment
alongwith the R/W at the above address and give me sufficient time
-
to join as I have to submit one month notice to CRP before joining
NCC.
Thanking you
c Yours faithfully,
(B.D. Tripathi)"
In somewhat similar case in Union of India and Anr. v. Lt. Col. Koma/
Charan and Ors., [1992] Supp 3 SCC 186, this Court held the respondents
D having exercised their option and were accordingly granted whole time NCC
Commission, they now cannot repudiate the same and claim any additional
benefit. This is what this Court say at SCC page 189 :-
"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.
E 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 support of these appeals the 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
F rules framed thereunder 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 authorises the Central Government
to provide for the appointment of officers from amongst the members
of the staff and university or school or otherwise. Section 13 of the
G 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 conditions 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
H were framed. Proviso (iii) in Rule 16 vests the authority concerned
U.0.1. v. BRAHMA DUTT TRIPA THI [H.K.SEMA. J.] 367
with very wide power in this regard. Except for Fundamental Rule A
56(a) relied upon in the impugned judgment, it has not been suggested
..
on behalf of the respondents that they are entitled to continue in
service upto the 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 B
prescribe. The question of grant of permanent commission to N.C.C.
officers employed on whole-time basis was considered in all the
relevant aspects and a decision was taken as mentioned in the afore-
mentioned letter dated 23.05.80 and referred to in the letter of24.05.80
sent under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government of
India to the Director General, N.C.C., New Delhi (Annexure P-4). It C
was considered desirable that before a person was granted N.C.C ..
pennanent commission,. in terms of the above letter an opportunity
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 in Appendix B to the letter. The relevant order D
in clear terms lays down the age of superannuation at fifty-five years
.vith a further provision of extension to the age of fifty-seven years.
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 E
any rule or law."
National Cadet Corps Rules 1963 (in short 'the Rules)' were framed by
the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 13 of the
NCC of the Act. .
Part IV of the Rules deals with the :.Appointment of Officers:" Rule 16 F
of the Rules under Part IV deals with the "Qualifications for appointments".
Proviso (iii) to Rule 16, which empowers the Government of India for
appointment of any person who is not qualified for appointment under the
Rules reads:
G
"(iii) the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, may authorise
the appointment of any person who is not qualified for appointment
undenhe rule."
It, therefore, clearly appears that proviso (iii) to Rule I6 is carved out
from the Rules authorizing the Ministry of Defence, Government of India for H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A appointment of any person who is not qualified for appointment under the
Rules. It must be grasped that throughout the NCC Act and Rules, there is
absolutely no provision for appointment of discharged Short Commission
Officer as an officer of the NCC. It is only to rehabilitate the Short Commission
Officers. who had been discharged after the hostility ended, that a provision
B had been made in proviso (iii) of Rule 16 empowering the Government for
such appointment who were not otherwise qualified for the appointment under
the Rules. As noticed earlier, the Government Order dated 21.12.1963 was in
exercise of the powers under proviso (iii) to Rule 16. The respondent has not
challenged the Government Circular dated 21.12.1963.
C The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the
respondent was appointed under the NCC Act and Rules and he would be
entitled to continue in the post till he attained the age of 45 years is mis-
conceived. It was to the knowledge of the respondent himself that he was
appointed under the composite Scheme framed in exercise of the power
D under proviso (iii) to Rule 16. Under the Scheme, the appointment was a
tenure appointment and the sen ice was for three years extendable by another
three years at a time. subject to the requirement of the service but not beyond
the age of 55 years. His servic"! might also be terminated at any time before
the completion of the initial or extended tenure at the discretion of the
Government of India in terms of Clause 4 of Appendix B of the Scheme.
E
Further, it needs to be noticed that tl\e service of the respondent was
extended from time to time. The service of the respondent was extended by
an order dated 19. I0.1971 along with other officers mentioned in Appendix
'A'. The name of Lt. B.D. Tripathi appears at SI. No. 70 and his service was
F extended from 11.12.1971to10.12.1972. The last extension was granted by
an order dated 15.12.1978. At SI. No. 87, service of Capt. B.D. Tripathi is
shown to have been extended from 11.12.1978 to 10.12.1979.
These unimpeachable documents on record will clearly show that it
was to the knowledge of the respondent himself that his appointment was a
G tenure appointment, extendable from time to time. He has not raised any
grievance against this before any authority.
The facts as adumbrated above will clearly show that the appointment
of the respondent was a tenure appointment pursuant to the Scheme devised
under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the Rules. There is no provision under the
H NCC Rules and Act providing for appointment of discharged Short Service
U.0.1. v. BRAHMA DUTT TRIPA THI [H.K.SEMA. J.] 369
Commission Officer as an officer in the NCC, save and except, as provided A
by the Scheme floated under proviso (iii) to Rule 16.
For the reasons aforestated, the impugned order of the High Court
dated 19th February 2003 and the order dated 14th July, 1997 passed by the
Tribunal are set aside. The T.A. No. 551 of 1987, filed by the respondent,
stands dismissed. B
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
A.K.T. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service law"Sign in to search