Holding

The classification of Group Captains (Time Scale) and Group Captains (Select) for different ages of superannuation is unconstitutional as it lacks intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the intended objective, violating Articles 14 and 16.

Summary

The case concerned Group Captains in the Indian Air Force who were promoted either on a merit basis (Select) or on a time‑scale basis (Time Scale) and were subjected to different ages of superannuation – 54/57 years for Time Scale officers versus 57 years for Select officers. The respondents argued that, since both categories held the same rank, drew the same salary and performed identical duties, the differential retirement ages violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Union of India contended that the distinction was justified by the officers' differing employability and the objective of maintaining a younger age profile of commanding officers as recommended by the AVS Committee. The Supreme Court examined whether there was an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus between the classification and the governmental objective, finding none. It held that the classification was arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently dismissed the civil appeals.

Issues considered

The validity of classifying Group Captains (Time Scale) and Group Captains (Select) for different retirement ages under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the method of promotion (time‑scale versus merit selection) constitutes an intelligible differentia.
Whether the classification has a rational nexus with the objective of achieving a younger age profile of commanding officers as per the AVS Committee recommendations.
Whether differences in employability or duties between the two categories justify disparate retirement ages.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.16

Subjects

Service LawRetirement AgeClassificationEqualityArticles 14 and 16Indian Air ForceGroup CaptainTime ScaleSelectAdministrative Law

Judgment

_(2014) 14 S.C.R. 1151

UNION OF INDIA &ORS. A
v.
ATULSHUKLA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4717-4719 of2013)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 B
[T. S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Service Law- Retirement age - Classification - Indian
Air Force - Different retirement age for Time Scale (TS)
Officers and Select Officers -Validity- Held: Difference in C
employability of Time Scale officers vis-a-vis Select officers
is more illusory than real - The Air HQ can, depending upon
its perception, order deployment and post any officer found
suitable for the job - Deployment remains an administrative
matter and unless the same involves any reduction in pay,
allowances or other benefits or reduction in rank or status of D
an officer legally impermissible, such deployment remains
an administrative prerogative of the competent authority -
Classification made by the Government of India for purposes
of different retirement age for Time Scale Officers and Select E
Officers does not stand scrutiny on the touchstone ofArts, 14
and 16 of the Constitution - Constitution of India - Arts. 14
and 16.
Constitution of India -Art. 14 - Content and sweep of-
Con stitutional validity of a classification - Tests for F
determination - Held: Art. 14 prohibits class legislation and
not reasonable classification - A classification passes the
test of Art. 14 only if (i) there is an intelligible differentia
between those grouped together and others who are kept out
of the group; and (ii) there exists a nexus between the G
differentia and the object of the legislation.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. In the case at hand, the difference in
employability of Group Captains (TS) is not borne out to
justify the classification made by the Government. It is H
1151
1152 '
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A evident from the particulars given by the respondents
that several Group Captains (TS) have held
appointments which are also held by Group Captains
(Select). If that be so, the difference in the employability
of Time Scale officers vis-a~vis select officers appears
8 to be more illusory than real. There does not appear to
be any hard and fast rule on the question of deployment
or employability of Group Captains (TS) or Group
Captains (Select) for that, matter. The Air HQ can,
depending upon its· perception, order deployment and
c post any officer found suitable for the job. Deployment
remains an administrative matter and unless the same
involves any reduction in pay, allowances or other
benefits or reduction in rank or status of an officer legally
impermissible, such deployment remains. an
o administrative prerogative of the competent authority.
[Para 37][1186-H; 1187-A-D]
1.2. The basis for classification in question for
purposes of age of superannuation which the appellant
has projected is much too tenuous to be accepted as a
E valid basis for giving to the Time. Scale Officers a
treatment different from the one given to the Select
Officers. Also, concerns arising from a parity in the
· retirement age of Time Scale and Select Officers too are
more perceptional than real. At any rate, such concerns
F remain to be substantiated on the basis of any empirical
data. The classification made by the Government of India
for purposes of different retirement age for Time Scale
Officers and Select Officers does not stand scrutiny on
the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ·
G as rightly held by the Tribunal. [Para 38][1187-D-G]
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali AIR 1952 SC
75 : 1952 SCR 284 ; Dr. Subramanian Swamy v.
Director, CBI and Anr. AIR 2014 SC 2140 : 2014

H
UNION OF INDIA &ORS. v. ATUL SHUKLA 1153

(8) SCC 682 ; Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri . A
Justice S.R. Tendolkar& Ors. AIR 1958 SC 538:
1959 SCR 279 ; Lachhman Das v. State of Punjab
AIR 1963 SC 222: 1963 SCR 353; E.P. Royappa
v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3: 1974 (2)
SCR 348 ; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India B
(1978) 1SGC248: 1978 (2) SCR 621 ; Col. A.S.
Iyer& Ors. v. Bala Subramanyan & Ors.(1980) 1
SCC 634 : 1980 (1) SCR 1036 ; Air India v.
Nargesh Mirza §Jnd Ors. (1981) 4 SCC 335 : 1982
(1) SCR 438 and Kamlakar and Ors. v. Union of C
India & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 756- referred to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
1952 SCR 284 referred to Para 10
2014 (8) sec 682 referred fo Para 10 D
1959 SCR 279 referred to Para 11
1963 SCR 353 referred to Para 12
1974 (2) SCR 348 referred to Para 13
1978 (2) SCR 621 referred to Para 14 E
2014 (8) sec 682 referred to Para 15
1980 (1) SCR 1036 referred to Para 21
1982 (1) SCR 438 referred to Para 22
(1999) 4 SCC 756 referred to Para 23 F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4717-4719 of 2013.
From the judgment and order dated 02.05.2013 passed
by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in
Transfer Application No. 385/09 in Writ Petition.No. 7811/09; · G
Transfer Application No. 386/09 in Writ Petition No. 9772/09
and Original Application No. 99/09 and order dated 21.05.2013
in Misc. Application No. 267/1.3 in T.A. No. 385/2009 in W.P.
No. 7811 of2009.
H
1154 SUPREME COURT REP,ORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A With
C.A. Nos.6185,6193,6220, 7221, 7223, 7228, 7220,
7219, 9645, 10955, 10954 and 9592 of 2013.
C.A. Nos. 91 and 689 of 2014
B R. Balasubramanian, D.K. Singh, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan,
Ms. Archita Phookan and B.V. Balaram ()as, Advs., for the
Appellants.
I
P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv., Sridhar Potaraju, S.S. Pandey,
Gaichangpou Gangmei, Abhishek R. Shukla, Arjun Singh,
C lshaan George, Ms. Megha Misra Aakarshan Sahai, Ms.
Manmeet Singh (ForM/s. Karanjawala &Co.), Ms. G Sreedevi
and Rabin Majumder, Advs., for the Respondents.
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
T. S. THAKUR, J.
D
1. These appeals arise out of separate but similar orders
passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the petitions filed by
the respondents holding them entitled to continue in service
E upto the age of 57 years in the' case of officers serving in the
ground duty branch and 54 years in the case of those serving
in the flying branch of the Indian Air Force. The solitary question
that falls for our consideration, therefore, is whether the
respondents who at the relevant point of time held the rank of
F Group Captain (lime Scale) in the Indian Air Force were entitled
to continue in service upto 54 and 57 years depending upon
whether they were serving in the flying or ground duty branch
of the force. The question arises in the following backdrop:
2. Post Kargil War, the Government of India constituted
G a Committee headed by Ajay Vikram Singh, former Defence
Secretary (hereinafter referred to asAVS Committee) to study
ways and means that would help ensure a "younger age profile"
for the commanding officer in the Indian Armed Forces. The
Committee made its recommendations in regard to all the
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ATUL SHUKLA 1155
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

three wings of the armed forces which were considered and A
accepted by the Government culminating in the issue of
separate orders regarding re-structuring of the officers cadre
in the Army, Navy and .the Air Force. In so far as the Indian Air
Force was concerned, the Government of India by an order
dated 12th Ma~ch, 2005 revised the terms and conditions B
applicable to Air Force Officers excluding officers serving in
the medical and dental branch. The order was to the following
effect:
"ANNEXURE P-2
No.2(2)/Us(L)/D(AIR-111)/04
c
Bharat Sarkar/Government of India
Raksha Mantralay/Ministry of Defence
New Delhi-110011
D
March 12, 2005

To
The Chief of Air Staff
E
Air Headquarters,
Vayu Bhawan,
New Delhi.
Subject: Restructuring of the officers cadre of the air
force. F
Sir,
1. The President is pleased to sanction revision of
various terms of service for Air Force Officers as
given in the succeeding paragraphs excluding G
officers. of Medical and Dental Branch.
2. Substantive Promotion:
To reduce the age profile and supersession levels
in the Air Force as also to improve vertical mobility,
H
1156 SUPREMECOURTREPQRTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. .

A Rank Reckon able commissioned
service
a) Flying officer (FG Offr) 0 N commission irig
b) Flight lieutenant (Flt 2 years
Lt.) ..
B c) Squadron leader (Sqn 6 years
Ldr) • .. .•.
d) Wing Commander (Wg 13 years
Cdr)
e) Group Captain (Gp . 26 years
--
c Capt) (Time Scale)

promotion to the substantive ranks of officers will
be made on completion of reckonable
commissioned service as indicated below:
D 3. Promotion accruing from Para 2 above shall also
be subject to the officers fulfilling other criteria to be
notified immediately by the Air Headquarters:
through Air HQ Human Resource Policy. Loss of
seniority for non qualification in promotion
E examinations already a~rded will continue to hold·
good.
4. Those serving in the rank of Wg Cdr (Time Scale)
will now be eligible for grant of the substantive rank
ofWg Cdr. On grant of substantive rank ofWg Cdr
F these officers would be·come eligible for
consideration for Gp Capt (Select)/Gp Capt (Time
Scale) provided that;
'
(a) Those who have attained the rank ofWg Cdr (Time
G Scale) on completion of 20 years of service before
the dare of implementation of the order and who have
been found suitable for grant of Wg Cdr (Time
Bound) based, on the new Human resource policy
notified by Air HQ will be eligible for consideration
H to the rank of GP Capt (Select). These officers
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1157
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

would reckon their seniority immediately below the A
junior most select Wg Cdr who has already been
promoted ahead of him prior to Implementation of
this order.
(b) Those who have attained the rank ofWg Cdr (Time
Scale) on completion of20 years of service, before B
the date of implementation of the order and who have
been found unsuitable for grant of Wg Cdr (Time
Bound) based on the new Human resource policy
will be ineligible for consideration to the rank of GP
Capt (Selection) but will be eligible for grant of rank c
of Gp Capt (Time Scale).
GP Capt (Time Scale)
5. Officer not promoted to the rank of Gp Capt by
selection, may be granted that substantive rank of D
Gp Capt (Time Scale), irrespective of vacancies,
provided they are considered fit in all other respects.
The terms and conditions governing the rank of Gp
Capt (Time Scale) are as under:
(a) Pay Scale. As applicable to Gp Capt (Select) E
Grade which currently is Rs. 15, 100-450
17,350.
(b) Rank Pay. Officers will be entitled to rank pay
of a Wg Cdrwhich currently is Rs. 1,600/-p.m.
(c) Other Allowances & Perks. Officers holding the F
rank of Gp Capt (Time Scale) will be eligible
for all allowances and other perks as
applicable to Gp Capt (Select) Grade.
(d) Age of Superannuation. The age of
G
superannuation for Gp Capt (time Scale) would
be same as it is for the rank of Wg Cdr in
respective, branches. Therefore, there is no
change in the retirement age of a Wg Cdr on
being promoted to the rank of Gp Capt (Time
H
Scale).
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A (e) Medical Criteria. The present provisions
contained in the policies and amendments
thereto, applicable so far for the rank of Wg
Cdr (Time Scale) will now be applicable to the
new grade of Gp Capt (Time Scale):
B 6.. Officers holding the rank of Gp Capt (Time Scale)
will be held against the authorization of Wg Cdr.
Such officers shall, in precedence, rank junior to the
following officers:-
(a) Substantive Gp Capt (Select).
c
(b) Acting Gp Capt (Select).
7. Detailed criteria and procedure for grant of
substantive rank of Gp Capt by Time Scale will
immediately be notified by the Air Headquarters
D through HRP. ,,,
8. Revision in pay and pension due to prorhbtion,
where applicable, to officers who have retired 1 :~uring
the intervening period between 16 Dec 04 ar'id!date
of issue of this letter will be reviewed :with
E retrospective effect from 16 Dec 04. :::::~
9. As a consequence of the implementation of the
above orders the appointments in which Sqo~•Ldrs
and Wg Cd rs can be posted are given at appeilidices
'A' and 'B' to this letter, mutatis mutandis Unit
F Establishments of units,' formationsOand
Establishments will stand modified to the~above
extent till their] revision in due course. Various'6i:ders ·
and instructions affected by the above decisions
would be amended in due course.
G
10. These orders will take effectfrom 16 Dec2U04.
11. This issues with the concurrence of lnt~ated
Finance vide their Dy No.636/Dir (FintAiGYGS)
dated March 11, 2005. : :'
H
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1159
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

Yours faithfully, A

(Bimla Julka)
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India"
3. It is evident from the above that a Squadron Leader B
can, under the new dispensation, be promoted as a Wing
Commander upon his completing 13 years reckonable
commissioned service in the force. He can be further promoted
as Group Captain (Time Scale) after he has to his credit
reckonable service of 26 years. The position prevalent pre- C
AVS Co.mmittee recommendations, was that a Squadron
Leader who did not make it to the next rank of Wing Commander
in three chances admissible to him could become a Wing
Commander (Time Scale) and retire upon attaining the age of
52 years in case he was serving the flying branch and 54 years D
if he was serving in the ground duty branch of the force. This
was true even for a Wing Commander (Select) who did not
make it to the next higher rank of Group Captain in three
chances available to him for such promotion. Post-AVS
Committee the Government provided an additional avenue for E
the Wing commanders to pick up the next higher rank of a
Group Captain (Time Scale) even if they were not able to make
it to the next rank on the basis of inter se merit. The AVS
Committee recommendations and the Government Order were
• meant to provide relief to such officers, as were not able to go F
to the next level due primarily to the limited number of vacancies
in the pyramid like service structure where the number of posts
become fewer and fewer as one climbs higher in rank. The
pre-AVS Committee and post-AVS Committee position in
reg·ard to the retirement age fixed for various ranks in the Indian G
Air Force can be conveniently summarised in the following
chart:

H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A INDIAN AIR FORCE

Pre-AVSC Post AVSC

Raok Flying
BraO<h
G'°""d
D"'Y
Bra"°"
""
Bra""' ""
Branch
Rying
Brandi
Ground
°"ty
Bra""'
"'"
Bra""' ""
"'"""
8 Wg 52 54 54 57 - - - -
Cdr
(TS)
'
Wg 52 54 54 57 52 54 57 57
Cdr.
(Select)
'.
Go capt - - - - 52 54 57 57
c (TS)

Go capt 52 57 57 57 52 57 57 57
(Select) (Extenda (Extenda
bleto54) ble to
54)

4. The chart makes it clear that post-AVS Committee's
D report and recommendations the Wing Commander (Time
scale) rank was abolished and the barfortime scale promotion
to officers who did not make to the next rank raised to Group
Captain (Time Scale). To that extent the issue of stagnation in
the Air Force was addressed by providing avenues for upward
E · mobility of Wing Commanders. There was at the same time a
flip side to the Government decision inasmuch as the
advantage in terms of upward movement was, to an extent,
neutralised by the Government retaining the retirement age of
Group Captains (Time Scale) at 52 years in the case of flying
F branch and 54 years in the case of officers serving in the ground
duty branch. This is evident.from a reading of clause 5(d)
extracted above which denied to the Group Captains (Time ·
Scale) the benefit of a higher retirement age applicable to
Group Captains (Select) who could serve upto 54 years of
G age in the flying branch and 57 years in the ground duty
Education and Met branches of the force. The Government
Order in effect classified officers holding the rank of Group
Captains in two categories one comprising officers who rise
to that rank by time scale upon completion of 26 years of
.H
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1161
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

service and the other who got there by promotion on the basis A
of merit. This classification of officers serving in the air force
holding the same rank but governed by different standards for
purposes of their superannuation was assailed by the
respondents who were Group Captain (Time Scale) in petitions
filed by them before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal B
Bench, New Delhi. The grievance made by them was that
Group Captains in the Air Force constituted one class
regardless whether they were promoted to that rank by time
or
scale on inter se merit.. The respondents alleged that they
were discharging the same kind of duties as were being c
performed by Group Captains (Select). They were wearing
the same ranks and drawing the same emoluments and other
allowances and were regulated by the same conditions of
services in all other respect. Classifying officers who were
similarly situate on the basis o.f the method of appointment to o·
the rank of Group Captain wheh everything else was the.same,
was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution argued
the aggrieved officers.
5 . .The petitions were contested by the appellant-Union
of India primarily on the ground that although the respondents E
held the same rank as Group Captains (Time Scale) and were
similar in all other respects inclu'ding emoluments and other
conditions of service and although they were treated to be
equivalent to Group Captain (Select) yet the nature of duties
and the operational employability of officers promoted to Group F
Captain (Select) rank was better in comparison to those
. holding the rank of Group Captain (Time Scale). The rank of
Group Captain (Time Scale) was, according to the appellant,
a new ran.k created under Government Order dated 12th March,
2005 (supra) subject to the condition that the retirement age G
of Group Captain (Time Scale) would remain the sanie as was
applicable to Wing Commanders retiring in that branch. The
objective behind creating the rank of Group Captain (Time
Scale) was to provide continued motivation even such officers
H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A as may not have made it to the rank of Group Captain (Select).
It was alleged that post implementation of AVS Committee
recommendations, Group Captain (Time Scale) Officers were
being posted against positions earlier given to Wing·
Commanders apart from the fact that the sanctioned strength
B of such Time Scale ranks officers_ was held against Wing
Commander (Time Scale) ranks that existed earlier.
6. Th·e Tribunal has, upon consideration of the rival
submissions, come to the conclusi.on that while the purpose
underlying the creation of time scale post of Group Captain on
C completion of 26 years of service was laudable, classification
of Group Captains (Time Scale) and Group Captains (Select)
into two categories was not constitutionally permissible. The
Tribunal recorded a finding that Group Captains (Time Scale)
wear the same rank and get the same salary, grade pay and
D draw the same benefits as Group Captains (Select). Posting
of Group Captains (Time Scale) against posts earlier manned
by Wing Commanders was', according to the Tribunal, an
administrative matter which did not justify the classification
made by the Government for purpose of prescribing a different
E retirement age for the two categories. The Tribunal held that
the only difference between Group Captains (Time Scale) and
Group Captains (Select) is that the latter get promoted to the
post of Group Captains in a shorter period whereas Group
Captains (Time Scale) can get to that rank only after serving
F for not less than 26 years., Select officers by that pr.ocess
become senior to the Time .Scale Promotees. The Tribunal
held that providing avenues for promotion for Wing
Commanders who do not make it to the rank of Group Captains
by selection was meant to avoid stagnation in the officers rank
G besides providing incentives to such officers to continue
serving the force subject to their maintaining the required level
of professional ability and proficiency and physical fitness to
be promoted to the next rank against a time scale vacancy.
Such officers could not, therefore, be deprived of the benefit
H
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1163
[T. S. THAKUR, J.] ·

of higher retirement age that would accrue to them by reason A
of their continued good performance required for such
promotion to the next rank. The Tribunal observed:
"On the one hand they have granted them a benefit for
serving Indian Air Force for more than 26 years and on
the other hand they want to deprive them by retiring B
them at the age of 54 years. There appears to be no
rational basis in this. When both the persons wear the
same rank,. draw the same salary and get the same
grade pay and then to say that one Gp Capt (TS) will
retire at the age of 54 and the other Gp Capt (Select) at C
the age of 57 years. This distinction which is sought to
be made has no rational basis whatsoever. It is true
that Government can have mini and micro classification
but th.ere has to be some rational basis for cerlain object
which is sought be achieved. In this case all rationale D
which has been given is this only that since the Gp.
Captain (TS) are posted against the post of Wg Cdr
and age of retirement of Wg Cdr is 54 years, therefore,
they should be retired at 54 years is no rationale. Once
. a person who has been promoted from Wg Cdr to Gp E
Captain, he wears his uniform as Gp Captain and he
draws same salary of Gp. Capt he gets same Grade
Pay of Gp. Capt., he performs same duties of Gp Capt
as others Gp Capt performs except the flying branch,
then to make a distinction that he should retire at the F
age of 54 years because the post against which he has
been aP,pointed is that of a Wg Cdr, therefore, he will
still be treated as Wg Cdr for the purpose of
superannuation is no rationale."
7.Appearing for the appellants, Mr. R. Balasubramanian G
strenuously argued that the Tribunal had fallen in error in holding
that there was no rational basis for classifying Group Captains
(Time Scale) and Group Captains (Select) in two different.
categories for purposes of their retirement age. The fact that
H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A the Group Captains (Select) were promoted to that rank on
the basis of their merit was, according to the learned counsel,
by itself a sufficient reason that would justify their classification
as a separate and distinct group for purposes of prescribing
a different retirement age apart from the method of
B appointment to that rank itself being different. It was also
contended that although Group Captains (Select) and Group
Captains (Tiine scale) were in all respects including the ranks
that they wear, salary they receive, and other service benefits
they are entitled to similar to Group Captains (Select), yet the
c nature of duties which Group Captains (lime Scale) performed
were substantially if not entire,ly different from those that are
assigned to Group Captains (Select). The deployability of Time
Scale Officers was, according to the learned counsel, limited
which put them into a different bracket for purposes of
o superannuation. It was submitted that even when the
recommendations made by the AVS Committee as applicable
a
to the Indian Army had not made a.distinction between Colonel
(Select) and Colonel(Time scale) in terms of the retirement
age yet the very fact that the Government had not made such a
E distinction in the Army did not mean that the same could not
be made in regard to theAir Force. The classification made
by the Government for purposes of different ages of retirement
between officers in the Select and Time Scale categories was
thus sought to be justified by the appellants on what was
F according to them an intelligib,le differentia that fully justifies ·
the classification.
8. On behalf of the respondents it was, on t~e other hand,
contended that the classification made by the Government of
India in the matter of age of retirement of Select and Time
G Scale officers was wholly impermissible and hostile to the Time
Scale Officers who were holding the same rank, drawing the
same salary and allowances and for all intents and purposes,
discharging the same duties as any other officer holding that ·
rank was doing. Just because Time Scale Officers came to
H
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1165
[T. $.THAKUR, J.]

be promoted by a different route than officers in the select A
category did not justify the classification brought about by the
Government Order in the matter of age of superannuation. It
was also contended that there was no intelligible differentia
between Group Captains whether they came to hold that rank
based on Selection or Time Scale so long as the officers held B
the same rank and enjoyed similar service benefits. It was urged.
that there was no real basis for the appellants to argue that
upon promotion as Group Captain (Time Scale) the appellants
were discharging functions that were, in any way, inferior or
less onerous to those discharged by Group Captain (Select). C
The Tribunal had also recorded a finding to that effect and held
that the posting of an officer after he is promotec;i as Group
Captain (Time Scale) or Group Captain (Select) was an
administrative matter which could not provide a reasonable
basis or an intelligible differentia to treat them differently so aso
to justify a different treatment .
9. It was also contended that the Government had by
accepting the AVS Committee Report opened avenues for
upward mobility of officers who fulfil the minimum requirement
prescribed for such upward movement which was earlier E
restricted to a Wing Commander level but now raised to the
rank of Group Captain. There was, in any case, no nexus
between the object sought to be achieved in terms of theAVS
Committee recommendations and the Government Order on
the one hand and the classification of officers on the other. F
This was true even when the claim made by the appellants
that the classification and the lower age of retirement for Group
Captain (Time Scale) was meant to keep a lower age profile
for commanding officers in theAir Force. ·
10. The seminal question that falls for our determination G
in the above backdrop is whether classification of Group
Captains in the Indian Air Force for purposes of age of
superannuation, is offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution. A
long line of decisions of this Court that have explained the
H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A meaning of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and laid down test.s for determining the
constitutional validity of a classification in a given case
immediately assume importance. These pronouncements have
by now authoritatively settled that Article 14 prohibits class
B legislation and not reasonable classification. Decisions starting
with State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (AIR 1952 SC 75)
down to the very recent pronouncement of this Court in Dr.
Subram.anian Swamyv.. Director, CBI andAnr. (AIR 2014
SC 2140) have extensively examined and elaborately
c explained that a classification passes the test of Article 14
only if (i) there is an intelligible differentia between those
grouped together and others who are kept out of the group;
and (ii) There exists a nexus between the differentia and the
object of the legislation. Speaking for the Court Das J., in
D Anwar Ali's case (supra) summed up the essence of what is
permissible under Article 14 in the following words:
•
"The classification must not be arbitrary but must be
rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some
qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all
E the persons grouped together and not in others who are
left out but those qualities or characteristics must have
a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In
order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled,
namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on
F an intelligibl~ differentia which distinguishes those that
are grouped together from others and (2) that that
differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the Act.
The differentia which is the basis of classification
G and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is
necessary is that there must be a nexus between them."
11. The principle was reiterated in Shri Ram Krishna
Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R Tendolkar & Ors. (AIR 1958
H SC 538) in the following passage:
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1167
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

"It is now well establishecf that while article 14 forbids A
class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purposes of legislation. In order,
· however, to pass the test of permissible classification
two conditions must be fulfilled namely (1) that the
classification must be founded on an intelligible B
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that
are grouped together from others left out of the group
and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to
the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question. The classification may be founded on different C
basses, namely, geographical, or according to objects
or occupation or the like. What is necessary if that there
must be a nexus between the basis of classification and
the object of the Act under consideration."
12. In Lachhman Das v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1963 D
SC 222), this Court while reiterating the test to be applied for
examining the vires of an Act on the touchstone of Article 14
· sounded a note of caution that over-emphasis on the doctrine
of classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the
Article of its glorious content. This Court observed: E
" ..... the doctrine of classification is only a subsidiary
rule evolved by courts to give a practical content to the
said doctrine. Overemphasis on the .doctrine of.
classification or an anxious and sustained attempt to
discover some basis for classification may gradually F
and imperceptibly deprive the article of its glorious
content. ThaJ process would inevitably end in
substituting the doctrine of classification for the doctrine
of equality: the fundamental right to equality before the
Jaw and equal protection of the laws may be replaced G
by the doctrine of classification." .
13. The content and the sweep of Article 14 of the
Constitution was once more examined in E.P. Royappa v.
State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3, where this Court laid H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A bare a new dimension of Article 14 and described its activist
magnitude as a guarantee against arbitrariness. Speaking
for the Court, P.N. Bhawati, J. as His Lordship then was said:
"85. xxxxxx
Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that
B
there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in
matters relating to employment or appointment to.any .
office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and
independent fundamental right because of its great
importance as a principle ensuring equality of
c opportunity in public employment which is so vital to
the building up of the new classless egalitarian society
envisaged in the Constitution, Article 16 is only an
instance of the application of the concept of equality
enshrined in Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the
D genus while Article 16 is a species. Article ·16 gives
effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating·
to public employment. The basic principle which,
therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality
and inhibition against discrimination.
E
Xxxxxxx
Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and ·
dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed, cabined and
confined" within traditionaland doctrinaire limits. From
F a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to
arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn
enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic
while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute
monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that
G it is unequal both according to political logic and
constitutional law and is therefore violative ofArticle 14,
and if it effects any matter relating to public
employment, it is a/so violative of Article 16. Articles
14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and
.H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ATUL SHUKLA 1169
[T. S.THAKUR, J.]

ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require A
that State action must be based on valid relevant
principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it
must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant
considerations because that would be denial of equality.
Where the operative reason for State action, as B
distinguished from motive inducing from the
antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant
but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible
considerations, it would amount to ma/a fide exercise
of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide C
exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal
radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the
latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by
Articles 14 and 16."
14. The dimensions of Article 14 were further enlarged D
by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 /
SCC 248, where Bhagwati, J. once again speaking for the
Court described the guarantee against arbitrariness as a great
equalising principle, a founding faith of the Constitution, and a-,
pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic E
republic.
15. It is unnecessary to burden this judgment with
reference to several indeed numerous other pronouncements·
that have reiterated and followed the ratio of the decisions to
which we have referred hereinabove for we would remain F
content with a reference to a recent Constitution Bench
decision in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI and
Anr. (AIR 2014 SC 2140) where this Court was examining
whether Section 6A(1) of the PC Act, 1988 was constitutionally
valid insofar as the same required approval of the Central G
Government to conduct any inquiry or investigation into any
offence alleged to have been committed under the said Act
where such allegations related to employees of the Central
Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above and
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A officers as are appointed by the Central Government in
Corporations established by or under any Central Act,
Government companies, societies etc. Speaking for the Court
Lodha, CJI observed:
· "Can it be· said that the classification is based on
B intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of
Joint S(#cretary level and above who are working with
the Central Government are offered protection under
Section 6-A while the same level of officers who are
working in the States do not get prot§ction though both
c classes of these officers are accused of an offence
.under PC Act, 1988 and inquiry I investigation into such
allegations is to be carried out. Our answer is in the
negative. The provision in Section 6-A, thus, impedes
tracking down the corrupt senior bureaucrats as without
D previous approval of the Centra/Government, the CBI
cannot even hold preliminary inquiry much less an
investigation into the allegations. The protection in
Section 6-A has propensity of shielding the corrupt. The
object of Section 6-A, that senior public servants of the
E level of Joint Secretary and above who take policy
decision must not be put to any harassment, side-tracks ·
the fundamental objective of the PC Act; 1988 to deal
with corruption and act against senior public servants.
The CBI is not able to proceed even to collect the
F material to unearth prima facie substance into the merits
of allegations. Thus, the object of Section 6-A itself is
discriminatory. · That being the position, the
discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that
there is a reasonable· classification because it has
G rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.
16. Time now to test the validity of the classification in
the case at hand; in the light of the legal position enunciated in
the decisions of this Court juxtaposed with the rationale which
the appellant-Union of India has advanced to justify its action.
H
UNION OF INDIA &ORS. v. ATUL SHUKLA 1171
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

As noticed earlier, there are in substance two main reasons A
which the appellant has advanced in support of the
classification made by it. The first and foremost is that officer
who get promoted to the rank of Group Captains on the basis
of merit constitute a class different from the ones who do not
make it to the next rank on that basis. That officers who fail to B
make the grade in merit selection on three occasions
admissible to them are eventually promoted to the rank of
Group Captains based on the length of their service does not,
according to the appellant, make them equal to their
colleagues who have stolen a march over them by reason of c
their superior merit. The second and the only other ground
called in aid· of the classification is that Group Captains (Time
Scale) do not discharge the same functions as are discharged
by Group Captains (Select). The deployability of time scale
Group Captains being limited, they can, according to the o
appellants, be classified as a different group or category even
when in all other respects they are equal to the officers
promoted on merit.
.17. The Tribunal has rejected both the reasons
aforementioned and, in our opinion, rightly so. Classification E
of employees based on the method of their recruitment has
long since been declared impermissible by this Court. There
can be no differential treatment between an employee directly
recruited vis-a-vis another who is promoted. So long as the
two employees are a part of the same cadre, they cannot be F
treated differently either for purposes of pay and allowances
or other conditions of service, including the age of
superannuation. Take for instance, a directly recruited District
Judge, vis-a-vis a promotee. There is no question of their age
of superannuation being different only because one is a direct G
recruit while the other is a promotee. So also an !AS Officer ·
recruited directly cannot for purposes of age of superannuation
be classified differently from others who join the cadre by
promotion from the State services. The underlying principle is
H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A that so long as the officers are a part of the cadre, their birth
marks, based on how they joined the cadre is not relevant.
They must be treated equal in all respects salary, other benefits
and the age of superannuation included.
18. In the case at hand, Group Captains constitute one
B rank .and cadre. The distinction between a Group Captain
(Select) and Group Captain (Time Scale) is indicative only of
the route by which they have risen to that rank. Both are
promotees. One reaches the rank earlier because of merit than
the other who takes a longer time to do so because he failed
C to make it in the three chances admissible to them. The select
officers may in that sense be on a relative-basis more
meritorious than time scale officers. But that is bound to
.happen in every cadre irrespective of whether the cadre
comprises only directly recruited officers or only promotees or
D a mix of both. Inter se merit will always be different, with one
officer placed above the other. But just because one is more
meritorious than the other would not by itself justify a different
treatment much less in the matter of age of superannuation.
19. It is common ground that Time Scale Officers do not
E get to the higher rank only because of the length of service.
For purposes of time scale promotion also the officers have
to maintain the prescribed minimum standard of physical
fitness, professional ability, commitment and proficiency. Rise
to the next rank by time scale route is, therefore, by no means
F a matter of course. It is the length of se.rvice and the continued
usefulness of the officer on the minimal requi'rements stipulated
for such promotion that entitles an officer to rise to higher
professional echelons. Suffice it to say that while better inter
se merit would earn to an officer accelerated pron:iotion to the
G Group Captain's rank and resultant seniority over Time Scale
Officers who take a much longer period to reach that position,
but once Time Scale Officers do so they are equal in all respects
and cannot be dealt with d.ifferently in the matter of service
conditions or benefits.All told the submission of the Time Scale
H
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1173
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

Officers that because of their long years of service and A
experience, they make up in an abundant measure, for a
relatively lower merit cannot be lightly brushed aside. That
Group Captains (Time Scale) wear the same rank, are paid
the same salary and allowances and all other service benefits
admissible to Group Captains (Select) supports that assertion B
for otherwise there is no reason why they should have been
equated in matters like pay, allowances and all other benefits
including the rank they wear if they were not truly equal. Once
it is conceded that the two are equal in all other respects as
indeed they are, there is no real or reasonable basis for treating c
them to be different for purposes of age of retirement.
20. Two significant features need to be noticed at this
stage. The first and foremost is that before AVS Committee
recommended the raising of bar for time scale officers, from
the rank of Wing Commanders (TS) to Group Captains (TS), D
the age of retirement for Wing Commanders (TS) and Wing
Commanders (TS) was the same. In other words, the pre-AVS
Committee regime did not recognise any distinction between
time scale and select officers to justify a different age of
retirement for them. Not only that while implementing theAVS- E
Committee recommel'.ldations in. regard to the Indian Army the
Government have not made any distinction between Cols
(Select) and Cols (TS) for purposes of the age of retirement
as both retire at the same age. When asked whether there is
any difference in Time Scale and Select Officers serving in F
the Army on the one hand andAir Force on the other, learned
counsel for the appellants was unable to provide any
satisfactory explanation for the dichotomy. All that was argued
was that Army being a bigger organisation there is no difficulty
in suitably deploying Col. (TS) officers but Air Force being a G
smaller organisation as compared to the Army, it is not possible
to do so in theAir Force. That is, in our opinion, hardly a reason
for the classification brought about by the Government in regard
to Air Force Officers. While it is true thatAir Force is a smaller
H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A organisation in comparison to Army, the fact remains that the
number of Time Scale Officers would also be proportionally
smaller than those in the Indian Army.
21. It is trite that birthmark of an officer who is a part of
·the cadre of Group Captains cannot provide an intelligible
B differentia for the classification to be held valid on the
touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We may
in this regard gainfully refer to the decision of this Court in Co/.
A.S. Iyer & Ors. II. Bala Subramanyan & Ors. (1980) 1
SCC 634, where Krishna Iyer J. as his Lordship then was
C. rejected a somewhat similar argument to justify a classification
based on the birthmarks of the members of a cadre. He said:
"Le_t us eye the issue from the egalitarian angle of
Articles 14 .and 16. It is trite law that equals shall be
treated as equals and, in its application to public
D service, this simply means that once several persons
have become members of one service they stand as
equals and cannot, thereafter, be invidiously
differentiated for purposes of salary, seniority, promotion
or otherwise, based on the source of recruitment or other
E adventitious factor. Birth-marks of public servants are
ob/iterated on entrv into a common pool and bur countrv
does not believe in official casteism or blue blood as
assuring preferential treatment in the future career. The ·
basic assumption for the application of this principle is
F that the various members or groups of recruits have
fused into or integrated as one common service. Merely
because the sources of recruitment are different, there
cannot be apartheidisation within the common service:"
(emphasis supplied)
G
22. In Air India v. Nargesh'Mirza and Ors. (1981) 4
sec 335, a three-Judge Bench of this Court was examining
whether a rule that permitted retirement of Hostesses, within
four years of her joining service, was reasonable. This Court
H
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1175
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

held that if the factors or circumstances that are taken into A
consideration while fixing the age of superannuation are
· inherently irrational or illogical, the decision fixing the age of
retirement will be flawed. The Court observed:
"There can be no cut and dried formula for fixing age of
retirement. It is to be decided by the authorities B
concerned after taking into consideration various
factors such as the nature of the work, the prevailing
conditions, the practice prevalent in other
establishments and the like. But the factors to be
considered m·ust be relevant and should bear a close C
nexus to the nature of the organisation and the duties
of the employees. So where the authority concerned
takes into account factors or circumstances which are
inherently irrational or illogical or tainted, the decision
fixing the age of retirement is open to serious scrutiny." D
23. In Kamlakar and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(1999) 4 SCC 756, this Court was examining whether a
distinction could be made between direct recruits and
promotees as regards equal treatment in the matter of pay
scales admissible to them. Rejecting the contention that such E
distinction would be justified this Court held that once officers
are placed in one cadre the distinction between direct recruits
and promotees disappears. The birthmarks have no relevance
for classification of Data Processing Assistants who are directly
recruited and others who are promoted. This Court observed: F
"12 ...... Once they were all in one cadre, the distinction
between direct recruits and promotees disappears at
any rate so far as equal treatment in the same cadre
for payment of the pay scale given is concerned. The G
birthmarks have no relevance in this connection. If any
distinction is made on the question of their right to the
post of Data Processing Assistants they were holding
and to its scale - which were matters common to all of-
them before the impugned order of the Government of H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A India was passed on 2-7-1990, - then any ~l~tinction
between Data Processing Assistants who were direct
recruits and those who were promotees·;· is not
permissible. We, therefore, reject the res~bndents'
contention: .... " · ·
B 24. The principles stated in the above decisions lend
considerable support to the view that ~lassification of Group
Captains (Select) and Group Captains (Time Scale) in two
groups for purposes of prescribing different retirement ages,
is offensive to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the
C Constitution of India. These appeals must, on that basis alone,
fail and be dismissed, but, for the sake of a fuller treatment of
the subject, we may as well examine whether the classification
has any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the
Government decision taken in the wake of the AVS Committee
D recommendations.
25. The AVS Committee was tasked to examine two
main issues namely (i) achieving optimal combat effectiveness
by bringing down the age profile of Battalion/Brigade
Commanders and (ii) making the organisation more effective
E in fulfilling individual career aspirations by their officers. This
is evident from the report of the Committee in para 5 whereof
it has said:
"5. According to the AHQ Paper, the following areas
needed to be addressed:
F
(i) Organisational Imbalances. Arising out of
seep paramedical structure of the cadre. The
issues mentioned in the Paper under this
heading were high age profile, physical
G fitness and need for giving wider exposure to
officers in today's high techno/Ogy
environment.
(ii) Individual Aspirations. Left unfulfilled due to:
(a) Inadequate career progression.
H
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1177
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

(b) Disparity with Class 'A civil services. A
(c) Harsh service conditions.'
26. The Committee then examined various options in
· regard to both the· issues mentioned above and made its
recommendations. Apart from suggesting measures that could . B
be taken to reduce the age profile of Battalion/Brigade
Commanders, the Committee suggested introduction of
Col.(TS) rank for the Army which recommendation when
applied to Air Fqrce resulted in introduction of the rank of Group
Captain (Time Scale). These new creations were meant to
meet the aspirations of the officers who diq not make to the C
next rank on the basis of merit selection.
27. In theAir Force, the avowed objectives underlying
the recommendations were achieved by the Government
permitting a Wing Commander to pick up the next higher rank 0
of Group Captain on merit after putting in a service of 13 years
only and by creating the rank of Group Captain (Time Scale).
This change has ushered in a new regime under which younger
officers got promoted as Group Captains. Once promoted they
gain an edge over others who do not make it to the next rank E
on merit but who reach there on time scale basis after 26 years
of service. Group Captains (Select) who are invariably younger
by many years to such Group Captains (TS) thus provide the
human resource from out of which the Air Force picks up its
commanding officers. lime Seal~ officers, would in the light of F
the change, be generally if not invariably in non-command
positions in theAir Force, to which they have never raised any
objection as was the submission of learned counsel appearing
on their behalf. But to say that sending these time scale offices
home on attaining the age of 52 years and 54 years depending
upon whether they are serving in the flying or ground duty branch G
has any nexus with the object of having a younger age profile
of commanding officers is not in our opinion correct. So long
as Group Captains (Select) are senior to Time Scale Officers

H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A and so long as the former are younger in age as they ar~ bound
to be, the objective of having a younger age profile of
commanding officers is achieved even if the Time' Scale
Officers are permitted to retire at the same age as .Group
Captains (Select). The second test applicable viz. exis(ence
B of a nexus between the object sought to be achieved arid the
classification made by the Government also fails rendering
the classification bad.
28. The only other aspect that needs to be addressed is .·
whether the classification of Group Captain (Select) and Group
C Captairi (Time Scale) can be justified on the basis of nature of
duties they discharge. It was contended on behalf of the
appellants that nature of duties and functions were not identical
for the two categories. A classification based on such a
difference was, therefore, justified. The Tribunal has examined
D and rejected a similar contention urged before it. We may, in
this connection, refer to para 10 of the Writ Petition filed by the
respondents that came to be transferred to the Tribunal from·
the High Court for disposal. In para 10 the respondents-writ .
petitioners made the following averments:
E "10. That the nature of work duties and functions
performed by time scale group captains are identical
to that of group captains selection. Further, even the
financial powers enjoyed by Group Captain selection
are also vested with Group Captain time scale. The
F duties discharged by both Group captain selection and
time scale are identical."
29. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants
herein the appellants asserted as follows:-
G "9. In reply to Para 10, it is submitted that the nature of
work, duties and functions performed by Time Scale
Gp Capt is that of an officer of Wg Cdr rank. A Wg Cdr
on not getting cleared for promotion to the rank of Group
Captain is promoted on a time scale basis to Gp Capt
H
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1179 .
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

on attaining 26 years of service. However the officer A
continues to perform the duties and work of a Wg Cdr.
Financial powers of an officer are a function of the
officer's appointment and not of the rank. Therefore
equating the financial powers based on promotion by
Time Scale or by Selection has no meaning." B
30. A plain reading of the above reply would show that .
the appellants have not indicated how the work, duties and
functions performed by Group Captain (Time Scale) are
different from those discharged by Group Captain (Select). All
that is stated is that Group Captains (Time Scale) when . C
promoted after completing 26 years of service continue to
perform the work and duties of Wing Commanders. We have
not been able to appreciate this line of reasoning. If a Wing
Commander is promoted as a Group Captain on Time Scale
basis, the nature of duties must, by reason of such promotion, D
be more onerous than those discharged by him as a Wing
Commander. Promotion to a higher cadre invariably implies
higher responsibilities even when the essential nature of work
may continue to be the same. For instance, a Wing
Commander in the flying branch may be required to fly fighter E
aircrafts on peace time training or when the country is at war.
A Group Captain (Select) would also be doing the same work
as indeed even the Group Captains (Time Scale) shall ~e
required to do. Flying a fighter aircraft is thus ess.ential part of
. the duties of an officer serving in the flying wing. But to say that F
since a Group Captain (Time Scale) continues. to fly as he was
flying· as a Wing Commander, his promotion as a Group
Captain (Time Scale) is inconsequential from the point of view
of nature of work may not be correct. Nature of duties in such
situations does not undergo any significant change even when G
an officer picks up a higher rank. It is only the addition of higher
and more onerous responsibility attached to the office that fall
on his shoulder. One could well say that if Group Captain (Time
Scale) continues to work as a Wing Commander, what work
H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPO~TS. [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A are the Wing Commanders doing. That apart, allocation of
work and duties is a matter left for the Air Force Authorities to
determine. Lesser or higher allocation of such duties will not
trivialise the promotion of a Wing Commander to the rank of
Group Captain which progression must be treated to be a
B promotion for all intents and purposes. That is perhaps the
reasori why the Tribunal appears to have repeatedly asked
the appellants to explain the basis on which a distinction was
made between Group Captains (Select) and Group Captains
(Time Scale) no matter they are wearing the same uniform,
c same rank, getting the same salary and the same grade pay.
In the absence of any rational basis for such a distinction, the
Tribunal was right in saying:
"We asked learned counsel for the respondent
repeatedly to tell us that what is the rationale for making
D this distinction when the both the officers, one selected
by "select" and other by "time scale" they wear same
uniform,. they wear same rank, they get same salary
and they get same grade pay and discharge identical
duties (except flying branc;h) then why this distif]ction is
E sought to be made from their earlier birth mark. There
1
is no rationale which has been brought up either in reply
or by the learned counsel for the respondent. The only
. argument was that these 'are basically Wg Cdr and they
continue to be wing commanders. Once they have
F been promoted as a Gp. Captain (TS) they seize to be
Wg Cdr, it is there administrative arrangement that out
of these W!J Cdrs, some posts are upgraded in order to
provide salary to these persons of Gp. Cap. Once they
are drawing a salary of Gp. Capt and automatically post
G · of Wg Cdr stand upgraded otherwise no salary of the
Gp Capt will be given unless post of the Wg Cdr to which
he is posted is upgraded."
31. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellant-Union of India before us it was, interalia, stated that
H upon consideration of the recommendations made by theAVS
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1181
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

Committee, the Ministry of Defence had submitted to A .
Government of India a detailed statement of case for the latter's
consideration in wl:lich it was among other things pointed out
that while superseded wing commanders who make the
·minimum eligibility criteria laid down by theAir HQ should be
granted the rank of Group Captain (TS) on completion of 26 B
years of service, it would be preferable to have such
superseded officers exiting early so as not to adversely affect
efficiency in the cadre. It was also asserted that ifthe retirement
age of Group Captain (TS) and Group Captain (Select) were
to be at parthis may adversely affect the Indian Air Force in c
many resultant situations. The following four issues of concern
have been expressed by the appellants in the event of such
parity being granted in the matter of retirement age.
"(a) The operational fighting younger force will be
depleted and effect the combatpreparedness of the /AF. D
(b) If there is no additional benefit of promotion based
service to the officers who are selected on merit, the
motivation incentive to the officers who make it to the
. select rank through merit is nullified.
E
(c) As per the felt requirements of the armed forces,
which have now been accepted by the Government, the
age profile of field unit commanders have been reduced
to achieve optimum operational capabilities. If the
superseded officers of older ages are retained furlher, F
their employability based on functional capacity under
. these younger officers would pose command and
control hurdles.
(d) It will lead to a furlherdemandforequating in status
also, which will disturb the cadre structure of the entire G
Indian Air Force and affecting the operational efficiency
and command and control structure of /AF."
32. The counter-affidavit further attempts to draw a
comparison between Group Captain (TS) and Group Captain
(Select) in the matter of posting profiles. The counter- affidavit H ·
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 14 S.C.R.

A under the heading 'Posting Profile' points out the following
position:
POSTING PROALE

1. The list of Appointments Are posted in As laid down
established. against which vacancies which by the
B posts (Since posted are authorised established
the same as per appointment
contain establishment · wise vacancies
confidential for Group applicable to
data, ca·ptain Select Wg Cdrs.
Petitioners rank officers
~rave leave of
·C · this Hon'ble
Court to refer
to and rely
upon the same
at the time of
arguments)

2. Specimen Sample Directors are Jt. Directors
D
Org ani sat ion Organisation Gp Capt are Gp Capt
Chart (A true chart with (Select) (Time Scale)
copy of a duties and and Wg Cdrs
specimen responsibilities
organisatio.n of a specific
chart is directorate
marked and
annexed as
Annexure AG)·

33. The counter-affidavit also cites reduction in combat
effectiveness as one of the possible fall outs of any parity in
F the age of superannuation between Group Captains (TS) and
Group Captains (Select).
34. The respondents have, in the reply filed to the
. additional affidavit aforementioned, denied each one of the
distinctions sought to be made between Group Captain (TS)
G · and GroupQ should Captain (Select). It is asserted by them
that while recommending the creation of Group Captain (TS)
rank to provide upward mobiHty for officers who are unable to
pick up the ne).<! rank on merit basis, the AVS Committee
recommendations never envisaged any difference in the age
H ·of superannuation vis-a-vis Group Captain (Select). TheAV8
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1183
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

Committee which had examined the matter threadbare never A
thought that any such distinction or discrimination could be
justified between the two. The concerns expressed by the
Government as a possible fall out of a parity in retirement age
has also been stoutly denied by the respondents in the following
words: B
"a) The number of Group Captain(TS) is miniscu/e
compared to the overall /AF Cadre. /AF has been
perpetually deficient in officers' cadre. Owing to
expansion of /AF both in terms of size, challenges,
technology and capability and creation of several new C
units and formations have further added to deficiency
woes of the /AF. Time and again !AF has approached
Government of India to enhance the /AF cadre both
officers' and personnel below officers' rank. But for
classified reasons the government has declined to D
enhance the /AF cadre barring some extremely limited
revisions of cadre thus compelling the IAF's HR
management to manage its manpower deficiencies
from within the current cadre by adopting the following
measures: E
i) Creation of to be manned level and manning level to
optimize sharing of the overall deficiency in /AF cadre.
ii) To share the poverty of deficient manpower across
various roles.and responsibilities of diverse formations F.
of the /AF, reduced manning level to the extent of
approximately 70% of the establishment is enforced to
keep the field and higher formations running at the
optimum level of efficiency.
iii) Retention of Group Captain (TS) for additional 3 G
years up to the age of 57 would not only fill the perpetual
deficiency suffered by /AF over the years.
iv) It is pertinent to mention here that minimum age of
superannuation in Meteorology and Education Branch
of the /AF is 57 and that of medical branch is 58. H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A b) It is incorrect to say that Group Captain(Select)
officers would be demotivated if Group Captain (TS)
are granted 57 years and that of medical branch is 58
years. These retirement ages are devoid of promotional
limitations from Flying officer onwards to Air Marshal.
B Since the very inception of the /AF continuation of such .
officers up to the age of 57 regardless of merit, selection
and/or supersession at the rank and has never
demotivated the officers of the other branches who were
selected on merit and retired at an equal age despite
c making to select rank through merit. All officers of
similar categories in all groups of branches have co-
existed in harmony and maintained efficient operational
functioning af!d high levels of moral and motiviation.
c) It is true that AVSC has mandated younger age
D profile of field unit and formation commanders.
Reduction of functional capacity on retention of Group
Captain(TS) beyond 54 and up to 57 years of age is ill
conceived due to the following facts"
(i) Command and control is a so well structured in the
E /AF that it is the superior rank whose orders are to be
obeyed devoid of age of the personnel placed below
such commander;
(ii) It may be recalled that currently minimum age of
superannuation in Meteorology and Education branch
F
of the /AF is 57 years and that of medical branch is 58
years. /AF history is replete with the fact that there has
never been any problem posed by these older age
officers serving under commanders younger in age of
such officers.
G
(iii) Even today a large no. of Group Captain(Select)
superseded in next higher rank (Air Commodore)
. continue to work under Air Commodores who are both
younger and junior in service to such superseded
H Group Captain(Select) officers, without causing any
UNION OF INDIA&ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1185
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

command and control hurdles. Similarly there are A
umpteen numbers of examples in higher ranks".
35. More importantly, the respondents have asserted that
Group Captains (TS) and Group Captains (Select) perform
the same functions and duties which .are higher than the duties
and functions performed by the Wing Commanders, they wear B
the same uniform and rank which is higher than the Wing
Commanders apart from drawing the same pay scale as Group
Captains, which too is higher than the one admissible to Wing
Commanders. On the question of posting profile of Group
Captains (TS) and Group Captains (Select), the respondents C
have, on affidavit, denied not only the alleged difference in the
nature of duties and functions performed by the two but
specifically claimed that Group Captains (TS) have been
posted and have held positions and appointments thcit are
ordinarily given to Group Captain( Select). In answer to para D
11 of the counter- affidavit extracted earlier, the respondents
have given the following instances, where Time Scale Officers
have held appointments also held by Select Officers:
Gp Capt (Select) Held by Gp Period
Appointn1ent Capt (TS) E
Co1nrnanding Officer· Gp Capt Not knovvn
Air- Force Intelligence (TS) Ka pi I
School Shukla

Chief Logistics Gp Capt 2005-2006
Officer, No-3, Base (TS) Vi jay
Repair DerJot Narain F
Chief Logistics Gp Captain 2007-2009
Manag~rnent Officer, (TS) VJ
HQ ~lfaintenance Narain
Con1r11and

Chief Logistics Gp Capt Not Known.
Officer·, No-7, Base (TS) G
Repair· Depot Chander
Shekhar·

Cornrnand Gp Capt 07/20120
Organisation Officer·, (TS) AS To 6/2013
V/esttern Air Negi
Corr1n1and . H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Corn1nand Gp Capt 6/2010 to
Intelligence Officer, (TS), y 02/2012
HQ Eastern Air Bagg a
CorTHnand

Director (Policy & Co- Gp Capt ·08/2012
ordination), (TS) AK onwards
orr-ectorate of P;ir Chatterjee
·. B Force Works, Afr· HQ.
-
· Dlr-ector· ECHS Gp Capt 04/2012 To
Rei;iional Centre, (TS) VK 07/2013
Nagpcu· Yndav
Dfr·ector ECHS Gp Capt
I 06/2012
Regional Centre, (TS) Sajjan onv..iards
c Su!ur (!N)

Oir·ector . r ECHS Gp Capt Not known
Region;;il Hyderabad (TS) M
Mahap_atra
DlrEctor ECHS Gp Cap[t Not k1iovvn
Regional Centre (TS) M
Bangalore Mahapatr·a
D
VVlng Inchar·~ie Gp Capt 01/2011 to
Pen·sion & VVelfar·e (TS) Ram 06/2012
\:Ving Air Force Record Pratap
Office

Com1nandinf1 Officer· Gp Capt 06/2008 to
(Unit) HQ Training (TS) Rani - 10/2010
E Cornn1and . Pratap
Director
Inspectiopn
Air Staff
(ATS),
Gp Capt
(TS) AS Gill
I 04(2009
03/2010
to

Director·ate of Air
Staff Inspection, Air
HQ
'
-- -
F 36. The assertion of the appellant that a parity in the
retirement age reduces the combat effectiveness of the force
has been stoutly denied by the respondents who have asserted
that if a Group Captain(Select) or for that an Air Commodore
or an Air Vice Marshall gets superseded, his higher age neither
G automatically impedes the quality and standard of performance
of his duties nor does the IAF summarily curtail his residual
service as a consequence of his supersession, on the ground
tllat his higher age group may impact combat effectiveness.
37. On the material placed before us and having regard
H to the rival assertions made by the parties in their respective
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. v.ATULSHUKLA 1187
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]

affidavits the difference in employability of Group Captains (TS) A
is not borne out to justify the classification. made by the
Government. It is evident from the particulars given by the
respondents that several Group Captains (TS) have held
appointments which are also held by Group Captains (Select).
If that be so, the difference in the employability of Time Scale · B
officers vis-a-vis select officers appears to be more illusory
than real. There does not appear to be any hard and fast rule
on the question of deployment or employability of Group
Captains (TS) or Group Captains (Select) for that matter. The
Air HQ can, depending upon its perception, order deployment c
and post any officer found suitable for the job. Deployment
remains an administrative matter and unless the same involves
any reduction in pay, allowances or other benefits or reduction
in rank or status of an officer legally impermissible, such
deployment remains an administrative prerogative of the o
competent authority.
38. Suffice it to say that the basis for classification in
question for purposes of age of superannuation which the
appellant has projected is much too tenuous to be accepted
as a valid basis for giving to the Time Scale· Officers a E
treatment different from the one given to the Select Officers.
We are also of the view that concerns arising from a parity in
the retirement age of Time Scale and Select Officers too are
more perceptional than.real. At any rate, such concerns remain ·
to be substantiated cin the basis of any empirical data. The F
upshot of the above discussion is that the classification made·'
by the Government of India for purposes of differer:it retirement
age for Time Scale Officers and Select Officers does not stand
scrutiny on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution as rightly held by the Tribunal. G
39. In the result, these civil appeals fail and are hereby·
dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to
costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals dismissed.