Case: Ravi Paul  Vs. Union Of India

any provision in Rule 8(b) which enables an Army Officer or a re-employed Army Officer to count his Army service for the purpose of seniority in the CRPF. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the decision of Delhi High Court in U. B. S. Teotia and others v. Union of India and others (supra). For the same reasons the observations in the order dated January 21, 1986 passed by this Court in special leave petitions arising out of Delhi High Court decision in U. B. S. Teotias case (supra) that ``the respondents are the Army Officers within the meaning of Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules and they are entitled to add the length of their unbroken service as ECOs and SSCOs for the purpose of reckoning their seniority, cannot be regarded as based on a correct interpretation of Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules. The said observations must, therefore, be confined to that particular case only. 23. It has, however, been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 146 of 1992) that the said petitioners were absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF after being selected for appointment by the Special Selection Board which had also selected the SSCOs for absorption in the CRPF and that there is no rational basis for treating those SSCOs thus selected by the Special Selection Board, who were all similarly situate prior to their selection, differently in the matter of fixation of seniority merely on the fortuitous circumstance that out of them those who were assigned to the CRPF, would get the benefit of their past service in the Army, while those like the petitioners, who were assigned to the BSF would be denied the said benefit. In our view, there is no merit in this contention. The CRPF and the BSF are two distinct forces governed by separate statutory provisions. The fact that in the CRPF, the benefit of past service in the Army has been given to SSCOs who were absorbed/appointed after selection by the Special Selection Board during the period 1974-78 on account of the provisions of Rule 8(b) of CRPF Rules, as construed by the Delhi High Court, does not mean that the said benefit should also be made available to the petitioners who were absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF, though in the BSF there is no rule similar to Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules which confers this benefit. On the other hand, the said benefit has been expressly denied to the officers who were so absorbed/appointed, inasmuch as prior to the recruitment, the Government of India has clearly indicated in the letter dated September 6, 1972 that service rendered as SSRCOs will not count towards seniority and pension. This stipulation was also incorporated in the letter of appointment of the petitioners when they were absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF. In the said letter it is expressly stated that the benefit of the past service in the Army would not be available for the purpose of seniority. From the letter of the Government of India dated September 6, 1972 it appears that this policy was for recruitment of released ECOs/SSRCOs as Assistant Commandants/Company Commanders (Dy. S.P.) in the BSF, CRPF and Assam Rifles, etc. Merely because the said policy which was applicable to all released SSCOs who were to be absorbed/appointed in the various para-military forces of the Government of India could not be given effect in CRPF on account of Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules, would not mean that the said policy in its application to the BSF, where there is no such legal impediment, suffers from the vice of discrimination. 24. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 146 of 1992) that ECOs who were absorbed/appointed to the BSF during the period of 1967-71 have been given the benefit of counting their past service in the Army for the purpose of seniority and that there is no reason why similar benefit should not have been extended to SSCOs, like the petitioners, who were absorbed/appointed to the BSF during the period 1974-78 and that the denial of such benefit to the petitioners results in arbitrary and invidious discrimination and denial of the right to equality guaranteed under the Constitution. We are unable to agree. The ECOs who were absorbed/appointed to the BSF during the period 1967-71 has joined Army during emergency in the wake of the Chinese aggression. By joining the Army when the country needed their services they had made a sacrifice. Keeping in view the sacrifice made by them, the Government of India evolved a policy whereunder they were given certain benefit of their Army service for counting their seniority on re-employment in public services after their release from the Army. Moreover, they were absorbed in the BSF at a time when there was need for competent officers in the BSF and in order to attract such officers in the BSF it was considered necessary to give the benefit of the service of the Army for the purpose of seniority in the BSF to the officers who were absorbed/appointed in the BSF during the period 1967-71. The SSCOs have joined the Army as a career after the Emergency resulting from the Chinese aggression was over. When they were absorbed/appointed to the BSF during the period 1974-78 there was a change in the policy of the Government of India and the benefit of the service in the Army was not to be given to the SSCOs who were absorbed/appointed in the BSF after release from the Army. This condition was expressly mentioned in their letters of appointment and they opted to join the BSF knowing fully well that their Army service would not be counted for seniority in the BSF. The ECOs who were absorbed/appointed in the BSF during the period 1974-78 are officers belonging to two different categories and they cannot be regarded as persons similarly situate.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]22. It would thus appear that Rule 8(b)(i) of the CRPF Rules only governs the seniority as between Army Officers inter se, Army Officers and re-employed Army Officers inter se, Indian Police Services Officers inter se, and non-Army and Army Officers of equivalent rank inter se. The expression ``rank in this Rule means the rank in CRPF. There is nothing in Rule B(b) to indicate that the earlier Army Service of an Army Officer or re-employed Army Officer is to be counted for the purpose of seniority in CRPF. Since Rule 8(b)(i) is silent in this regard executive instructions can be issued by the Central Government for the purpose of giving benefit of Army service to Army Officers or re-employed Army Officers. With that end in view the Government of India, in its letter dated July 5, 1972 addressed to the Director General BSF and CRPF as well as I.G. (ITBP) and Secretary (Home), Arunachal Pradesh Administration, has laid down certain principles for the purpose of fixation of seniority of ex-ECOs appointed in the BSF, CRPF, ITBP and Assam Rifles. The said principles were, however, applicable only to ex-ECOs who were absorbed/appointed in these forces during the period 1967 to 1970. In U. B. S. Teotia and others v. Union of India and others (supra) the Delhi High Court has construed Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules to mean that Army Officers who are re- employed or Army Officers who came on deputation, have to retain their original seniority and will get the benefit for their Army Services. We are unable to read Rule 8 as having such an effect. In our opinion, the said Rule when it says that ``an Army Officer shall maintain his seniority as between Army Officers within a particular rank and an Army Officer re-employed in the Central Reserve Police Force shall maintain his Army Service between Army Officers within a particular rank only means that amongst Army Officers inter se and re-employed Army Officers and an Army Officer inter se their seniority to a particular rank in the CRPF would be fixed on the basis of their seniority in the Army. We have not found any provision in Rule 8(b) which enables an Army Officer or a re-employed Army Officer to count his Army service for the purpose of seniority in the CRPF. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the decision of Delhi High Court in U. B. S. Teotia and others v. Union of India and others (supra). For the same reasons the observations in the order dated January 21, 1986 passed by this Court in special leave petitions arising out of Delhi High Court decision in U. B. S. Teotias case (supra) that ``the respondents are the Army Officers within the meaning of Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules and they are entitled to add the length of their unbroken service as ECOs and SSCOs for the purpose of reckoning their seniority, cannot be regarded as based on a correct interpretation of Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules. The said observations must, therefore, be confined to that particular caseCRPF and the BSF are two distinct forces governed by separate statutory provisions. The fact that in the CRPF, the benefit of past service in the Army has been given to SSCOs who were absorbed/appointed after selection by the Special Selection Board during the period 1974-78 on account of the provisions of Rule 8(b) of CRPF Rules, as construed by the Delhi High Court, does not mean that the said benefit should also be made available to the petitioners who were absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF, though in the BSF there is no rule similar to Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules which confers this benefit. On the other hand, the said benefit has been expressly denied to the officers who were so absorbed/appointed, inasmuch as prior to the recruitment, the Government of India has clearly indicated in the letter dated September 6, 1972 that service rendered as SSRCOs will not count towards seniority and pension. This stipulation was also incorporated in the letter of appointment of the petitioners when they were absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF. In the said letter it is expressly stated that the benefit of the past service in the Army would not be available for the purpose of seniority. From the letter of the Government of India dated September 6, 1972 it appears that this policy was for recruitment of released ECOs/SSRCOs as Assistant Commandants/Company Commanders (Dy. S.P.) in the BSF, CRPF and Assam Rifles, etc. Merely because the said policy which was applicable to all released SSCOs who were to be absorbed/appointed in the various para-military forces of the Government of India could not be given effect in CRPF on account of Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules, would not mean that the said policy in its application to the BSF, where there is no such legal impediment, suffers from the vice ofECOs who were absorbed/appointed to the BSF during the period 1967-71 has joined Army during emergency in the wake of the Chinese aggression. By joining the Army when the country needed their services they had made a sacrifice. Keeping in view the sacrifice made by them, the Government of India evolved a policy whereunder they were given certain benefit of their Army service for counting their seniority on re-employment in public services after their release from the Army. Moreover, they were absorbed in the BSF at a time when there was need for competent officers in the BSF and in order to attract such officers in the BSF it was considered necessary to give the benefit of the service of the Army for the purpose of seniority in the BSF to the officers who were absorbed/appointed in the BSF during the period 1967-71. The SSCOs have joined the Army as a career after the Emergency resulting from the Chinese aggression was over. When they were absorbed/appointed to the BSF during the period 1974-78 there was a change in the policy of the Government of India and the benefit of the service in the Army was not to be given to the SSCOs who were absorbed/appointed in the BSF after release from the Army. This condition was expressly mentioned in their letters of appointment and they opted to join the BSF knowing fully well that their Army service would not be counted for seniority in the BSF. The ECOs who were absorbed/appointed in the BSF during the period 1974-78 are officers belonging to two different categories and they cannot be regarded as persons similarlyAppeal No. 4127 ofWrit Petition filed by the appellants challenging the fixation of seniority of respondents was rightly dismissed by the High Court because the letters of appointment of ex- ECOs it was expressly stated that their Army service shall be counted towards seniority.a condition was not prohibited by any provision of the CRPF Rules or BSF Act and the rules made thereunder. Hence, it cannot be said that the fixation of seniority of the respondents suffers from any legal infirmity.