UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusK.T. SHASTRI

                        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
                                  v.
                            K.T. SHASTRI

                             JANUARY 12, 1990

B           [RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND K.
                     RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

          Constitution of India, 1950: Article 16: Service Law-Defence
    Research Service-Three units--Benefit of enhanced superannuation
    age to the members of one unit-Denial to members of other units-
    Held discriminatory.
c
         Respondent was recruited as a Senior Scientific Officer in the
    Defence Science Service whic:h was subsequently trifurcated and
    reconstituted.

D         The Government of India enhanced the superannuation age of
    Scien.tific and Technical personnel of one of the newly constituted units
    upto 60 years by an order dated 24.12.1985.

       The respondent who was working in one of the other units of the
  reconstituted service, filed an a11plication in the Central Administrative
E Tribunal seeking a direction libat be was entitled to the benefit of
  enhanced age of superannuation upto 60 years as made applicable to the
  other unit which allowed the application. Hence this appeal by the
  Union of India.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
F
         HELD: 1. In view of Rullo 12 of the Defence Aeronautical Quality
    Assurance Service Rules, 1979 the benefit of enhanced age of superan-
    nuation given to the members of one unit was also available to the
    members of the other unit sim:e the said condition of service was not
    expressly provided for in the Service Rules. At the time of reconstitution
G   of the service no option was 1iiven to the employees working in the
    different units to opt for one m· the other of the units. Those who were
    already working in either of the three units were deemed to belong to ·
    the respective newly constituted service. Therefore their service condi-
    tions will have to. run parallel and no discrimination can be made bet-
    ween them by an unilateral action. The classification made between
H   them further has no rational basis and no nexus of such classification to
                                       20
                         U.0.1. v. K.T. SHASTRI [SAWANT, J.]                 21

       the object sought to be achieved has been shown. In the circumstances,
       the denial of the benefit of the enhanced superannuation age to the
                                                                                   A
       members of one unit while the same is granted to the members of the
       other units amounts to discrimination, violative of Article 16 of the
       Constitution. [23A, F, G, H, 24A]

            2. The decision of the Tribunal is both proper and valid. The          B
       appellants are directed to reinstate the respondent in service, who
       would continue in service till he attains the age of60 years. [24A, C-D]

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4284
       of 1988.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.88 of the Central                c
       Admn. Tribunal Hyderabad in O.A. No. 575 of 1987.

J            A.D. Singh, A. Subba Rao, C.V.S. Rao and P. Parmeshwaran
       for the Appellants.
                                                                                   D
             K.T. Shastri Respondent-in-person.

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

             SA WANT, J. The appellants, Union oflndia and the Director,
       Technical Development and Production (Air), Ministry of Defence,            E
       have preferred this appeal against the decision of the Central
       Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, holding that respondent
       K. T. Sh as try was entitled to remain in service upto the superannuation
       age of 60 years and was not liable to be retired at the alleged superan-
       nuation age of 58 years.
                                                                            F
             2. The relevant admitted facts are that the respondent was
       recruited as a Senior Scientific Officer on October 12, 1966 in the
       Defence Science Service. He was posted in the Directorate of Techni-
       cal Development and Producation (Air), briefly called DTD & P. at
       the relevant time, the Defence Science Service had three units under
       it, namely, 1) Defence Research and Development Organisation G


..
       (DRDO), 2) Directorate-General of Inspection (DGI) and 3) Directo-
--_,   rate of Technical Development and Production (Air) (DTD & P) .
 ,
             The recruitment when made was always to the Defence Science
       Service, and after the recruitment,. the recruits were posted according
       to the exigency of the service, in any of the said three units. Their       H
    22                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (1990] 1 S.C.R.

    services were inter-changeable and inter-transferable between the
A   three units. All. the service conditions of the persons working in the
    three units including scales cif pay, superannuation age, etc. were the
    same and were regulated by the same set of Rules, viz . Defence
    Science Service Rules.

B         3. In the year 1979, the Defence Science Service was trifurcated
    and reconstituted as follows.

          ( 1) Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)
    was reconstituted as Defence Research and Development Service
    (DRDS). (2) Directorate of Technical Development and Production
C   (Air) (DTD & P) was reconstituted as Defence Aeronautical Quality
    Assurance Service (DAQAS), and (3) Directorate General of Inspec-
    tion (DGI) was reconstituted as Defence Quality Assurance Service
    (DQAS). The appellant who was working in DTD & P became a
    member of DAQAS. When the trifurcation was made, the Service
    Rules governing the three units had a common Rule which was Rule 12
D   in DAQAS and DQAS , and Rule 13 in DRDS which reads as follows:

               " Other conditions of service:

                     (1) The conditions of service of the members of the
               service in respect of matters not expressly provided for in
E              these Rules, shall mutatis mutandis and subject to any spe-
               cial orders issued by the Government in respect of th~
               service, be the same as those applicable to officers (Civi-
               lians) of corresponding status in similar scientific institu~
               tions/organisations under the Government of India."

F          4. At the time the present controversy arose and the respondent
    approached the Administrative Tribunal, he was holding the post of
    Deputy Chief Scientific Officer. By an Office Memorandum No . 7(3)/
    85-D{R & D) of the Government of India , Ministry of Defence,
    Department of Defence Research & Development dated 24.12.1985,
    the decision of the President was conveyed whereby Scientific and
G   Technical personnel (gazetted) of D.R. and D.S. in the grade of Scien-
    tist 'E' and above, would retire at the age of 60 years and those in the
    lower grade for which flexible complementing scheme was applicable
    would also retire at the age of 60 years provided they had been pro-
    moted to the grades they were holding at the time of attaining the age
    of 58 years within the preceding five years. Subsequently by OM No.
H   7(3)i85-D .(R & D) dated 10.2.86, the said decision was extended to all
                        U.0.1. v. K.T. SHASTRI [SAWANT, J.]                 23



~>
      Scientific and technical personnel of the DRDO i.e. DRDS as listed in
                                                                                  A
      the Appendix 'A' of that Memo. By virtue of Rule 12 quoted above,
      this benefit given to the members of DRDS was also available to the
      members of DAQAS, since the said condition of service was not
      expressly provided for in the Service Rules. The Tribunal, therefore,
      held that the respondent was not liable to be retired at the age of 58
      years his superannuation age being deemed to have been increased to         B
      60 years in view of the OM dated 24.12.85 read with OM dated 10.2.86

~
      referred to above.

             5, It is this decision which is challenged before us by the appel·
      !ants. Mr. Subba. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
      contended that the Government had a right to prescribe different con·
      ditions of service for the members belonging to the different units, and    c

.,_   merely because the superannuation age of the members of the DRDS
      was increased, it could not be held that the respondent who belonged
      to another unit, viz. DAQAS, was entitled to the said benefit. There is
      no dispute that the Government has power to vary the service condi-
      tions of the members of the services from time to time. The question        D
      involved in the present appeal is, however, not whether the Govern-
      ment had such power. The question is whether the respondent was also
      entitled to the benefit of the power so exercised in the facts and
      circumstances of the case. The admitted facts are that in 1966 when the
      respondent was recruited to the Defence Science Service, the three
      units belonged to the said Service and the employees were recruited         E
      ·nitially to that service and then sent to different units. The service
      conditions of the employees belonging to the three units were the same
      and their services were inter-changeable between the three units. The
      Service Rules which applied to all the three units were also common,
      viz. Defence Science Service Rules, The three units, therefore,
      belonged to and constituted one single service, It is later in the year     F
      1979, that the Defence Research Service was .reconstituted into three
      different services as stated above. However, at that time, admittedly
      no option was given to the employees working in the different units to
      opt .for one or the other of the units, It appears that those who were
      already working in either of the three units were deemed to be.long to
      the respective newly constituted service. This being so, their service      G


...   conditions will have to run parallel and no discrimination can be made
      between them by an unilateral action. The classification made between
      them further has no rational basis and no nexus of such classification to
      the object sought to be achieved has been shown to us by Mr. Subba
      Rao appearing for the appellants. In the circumstances, the denial of
      the benefit of the enhanced superannuation age to the members of one        H
        24                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1990] 1 S.C.R.

    A   unit while the same is granted to the members of the other unit
        amounts to discrimination, violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
        We are, therefore, satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is both
        proper and valid, and there is no substance in the present appeal. The
        appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
    B       6. We are informed that in spite of the decision of the Tribunal
      and even pending this appeal when no stay was granted, the
      Appellant-Union of India retired the respondent at the age of 58
      years. We have been unable to understand this indefensible action on
      the part of the Appellant nor could the learned counsel for the Appel-
      lants explain it to us. We, therefore, direct the Appellants to reinstate
    C the respondent in service within one week of this Order and to pay to
      him all his emoluments from the date of his arbitrary retirement till the
      date of his re-instatement in service as if he had not been retired. We
      further direct that he would continue in service till he attains the age of
      60 years, unless of course for some other legal reasons, it becomes
      necessary to discontinue his services before that date.
    D
              7. We also understand that in the meanwhile the respondent was
        paid all his retirement benefits. The Appellant will not recover any
        amount so paid to the respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed
        with aforesaid directions and with costs.
    E T.N.A.                                                   A peal dismissed.
'