UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 492, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2017] t S.C.R. 492 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
(Civil Appea!No.3798 of2015) 
JANUARY 12, 2017 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) 
Armed Forces - Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme 
(DACP) - Applicability of. to medical doctors engaged as 
Commissioned Officers in Army Medical Crops-AMC Cadre -
Doctors of AMC, with more than 20 years of commissioned/Group-
A Gaze/led service - Applications by doctors seeking DACP before 
the Armed Forces Tribunal - Tribunal allowed the applications 
relying on the decision dated 18'" July 2011 in the Original 
Application seeking similar relief. wherein the tribunal had held 
that there was no denial that the DACP Scheme is equally applicable 
to AMC Cadre and had directed the department ta.issue instructions 
for implementation of the DACP.Scheme - On appeal, held: Correct 
factual position was not brought to the notice of the tribunal and 
also this Court, in the Appeal against the decision of the tribunal -
However, considering the far reaching financial and structural 
ramifications for the Defence Forces and in larger public interest, 
it is essential to examine the applicability of DACP Scheme to 
Commissioned Officers of Armed Forces - The fact that no express 
denial was stated in the pleadings filed before the tribunal cannot 
be construed as admission of the Department to extend DACP even 
to doctors working in AMC Cadre - If DACP Scheme is extended to 
doctors
working in AMC Cadre, it would result in an anomalous 
situation - Since the other Commissioned Officers working on the 
same rank would not be enlitled for DACP considering the service 
conditions of the Commissioned Officers governed by respective 
Acts - Further, the 6'" Pay Commission has not expressly 
recommended applieation of DACP Scheme to Commissioned 
Officers in AMC Cadre - Direction to issue instructions for the 
implementation of DACP scheme would have lo be construed to 
mean that the authorities must act in accordance with lmv and extend 
DACP scheme even to the Commissioned Officers of AMC Cadre, if 
permissible in law and nothing more - Thus, the respective OAs 
remanded to tribunal for reconsideration afresh. 
492
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
Disposing of the appeals and writ petition, the Court 
HELD: t.t On a fair reading of the decision in *Co/. Sanjeev 
Sehgal passed by t.he Tribunal dated t8" July 2011, all that it 
records is that there was no denial that the Dynamic Assured 
Career Progression Scheme (DACP) is equally applicable to AMC 
Cadre. Further, the Scheme has already been implemented in 
civil departments except in the Armed Forces. On that basis, the 
tribunal issued a direction to the Department to issue instructions 
for implementation of the DACP Scheme in the light of the Office 
Memorandum dated 29'' October 2008 issued by the Ministry of 
Health & Family Welfare, dated ts•• November 2008 issued by 
the Ministry of Finance and dated 27'' November 2008 issued by 
the Ministry of Defence. [Para 111 [513-A-CJ 
t.2 In that, the correct factual position was not brought to 
the notice of the tribunal and also this Court, in the Civil Appeal 
filed before this Court against the decision of the tribunal. 
Nevertheless, considering the far reaching financial and structural 
ramifications for the Defence Forces and in larger public interest, 
it is essential to examine the core issue about the applicability of 
DACP Scheme to Commissioned Officers of Armed Forces. The 
Commissioned Officers are governed by Army Instructions 
74/t976. Their promotion in AMC Cadre up to the rank of Captain, 
Major and Lt. Col. are by time scale subject to meeting the
prescribed criteria and substantive promotion to the ranks of 
Colonel, Brigadier, Major General and Lieutenant General is by 
selection. As per para 10 of Army Instructions 74/1976, officers 
granted permanent commission in the Army Medical Corps 
receive pay and allowances at the rates laid down in Pay and 
Allowances Regulations for officers of the Army, as amended from 
time to time by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in 
consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. 
On the other hand, the Doctors serving in Ministry of Defence 
are categorized as civilian medical doctors. In so far as civilian 
medical doctors are concerned, the Government has already 
extended DACP Scheme in terms of Circular issued by the 
Ministry of Defence dated ts•• January 2009. The fact that no 
express denial was stated in the plea!lings filed before the tribunal 
cannot be construed as admission of the Department to extend 
493 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
494 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
DACP even to doctors working in AMC Cadre. If DACP Scheme 
is extended to doctors working in AMC Cadre, it would result in 
an anomalous situation. For, other Commissioned Officers 
working on the same rank would not be entitled for DACP 
. considering the service conditions of the Commissioned Officers 
who are governed by the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 
and the Air Force Act, 1950 as the case may be. A distinction has 
always been made between AMC Cadre and other Medical 
Services in the Ministry of Defence. Even the previons Pay 
Commission reports maintained that distinction while making 
recommendations, as has been done by the 6th Pay Commission. 
The 6'h Pay Commission has not expressly recommended 
application of DACP Scheme to Commissioned Officers in AMC 
Cadre. While it has limited that recommendation to civilian 
employees it has not done so to doctors generally. [Para 12) [513-
E; 514-E-F, H; 515-A-F) 
1.3 The observation made in Col. S(lnjeev Se/ig(I/ case would 
have to be construed in the context of the final direction issued 
to the Department. The authorities were directed to issue 
instructions for the implementation of DACP scheme in the light 
of Annexures attached with the Original Application. That 
direction would have to be construed to mean that the authorities 
must act in accordance with law and extend DACP scheme even 
to the Commissioned Officers of AMC Cadre, if
permissible in 
law. No more and no less. Therefore, this Court whilst dismissing 
the Civil Appeal on 23" September 2011 observed that no 
substantial question of law of general/public importance arose 
for consideration. That decision cannot be given an expansive 
meaning so as to be read that de-hors the legal position, DACP 
scheme be extended even to doctors working as Commissioned 
Officers in AMC Cadre. Thus, understood, it must follow that 
the issues raised in the instant appeals by the Government and 
in particular by the Ministry of Defence are not concluded nor 
have they attained finality. On this finding, it may not be necessary 
to dilate on the possibility of an inaccurate reply affidavit having 
been filed before the tribunal to oppose the Original Application 
of Col. S(lnjeev Se/ig(I/ or for that matter the circumstances in 
which the appropriate Authority was inclined to implement DACP 
scheme qua Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces. It is
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
possible that office note in that behalf was prepared on an 
erroneous assumption that the Court has directed that the DACP 
scheme be implemented even in the case of doctors working as 
Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces. However, it is left open 
to the department to proceed against the concerned officers who 
were responsible for creating such confusion and for filing an 
inaccurate affidavit and for not bringing on record entire material 
relevant for deciding the principal question. [Para 13) [515-G-H; 
516-A-D) 
1.4 The appellants have relied on the Office Memorandum 
dated 29" August, 2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance and 
the resolution issued by the Ministry of Defence dated 30'' August, 
2008. The former Office Memorandum including the Office Noting 
on the file at different levels, prima facie, indicates that there 
was a clear exclusion of applicability of DACP Scheme to Doctors 
working as Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. Since the 
tribunal has not either in the case of Col. Stmjeev Seliga/ case or 
in the impugned decision examined all these aspects on its merits, 
it is deemed appropriate to relegate the parties before the tribunal 
for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh without being 
influenced by the observations made in the order passed in case 
of Col. Sanjeev Seliga/ case or the dismissal of appeal against that 
decision by this Court on 23'' September, 2011. It is said so 
because the
direction issued by the tribunal in the case of Col. 
Sanjeev Seliga/ to the Department for issuing instructions was 
obviously to decide the issue under consideration in accordance 
with law, on the question of applicability of DACP Scheme even 
to the Doctors working as Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. 
The said controversy has far-reaching structural ramifications to 
theArmed Forces besides financial implications and the possibility 
of a discrimination within the cadre. This requires deeper 
consideration. For that reason, this Court during the pendency 
of these appeals permitted the appropriate authority to examine 
the entire matter and take a necessary decision. Pursuant to that 
liberty, the Deputy Secretary (Medical) of the Ministry of Defence, 
Government of India, has informed of the decision of the 
Government vide communication dated 13" January, 2016 to the 
Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC). It would be open 
to tbe respondents in the appeals to question the correctness 
495 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
496 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
thereof in the remanded proceedings. This .would provide an 
opportunity .to bot.h sides to pursue their pleas and also facilitate 
the tr.ibunal to examine the correctness of the position and answer 
th~,matters in issue appropriately. [Para 14] (516-F-G; 517-A-E] 
1.5 The grievance of the respondents in the appeals that 
the appellants should not be permitted to rely on new documents 
which.were not part of the record before the tribunal or for that 
matter incorrect declaration and affidavit filed in support of the 
present appeals is not accepted. Instead, liberty is given to both 
sides to file further pleadings and place on record any further 
documents before the tribunal. (Para 15] [517-G] 
1.6 The appellants must file a comprehensive affidavit 
accompanied by all the relevant documents on which they would 
like to place reliance to buttress the stand as to why DACP 
Scheme cannot be extended to Doctors engaged as 
Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. The respondents (original 
applicants) would be free to file a response to that affidavit. [Para 
16] (517-H; 518-A] 
. 1. 7 The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the 
Constitution are disposed of with liberty to the writ petitioner to 
either intervene in the remanded proceedings before the tribunal 
or to file a fresh Original Application for the relief claimed by him 
in the present writ petition, which can be decided by the tribunal 
along with the
other remanded original applications. The order(s) 
passed by the tribunal in the respective appeals are set aside 
and instead the respective Original Applications are remanded 
to the tribunal for reconsideration of the entire matter de novo. 
[Paras 17, 18] [518-B-D] 
Col. Sanjeev Sehgal 0.A. No. 488 of 2011 Armed 
Forces Tribunal - referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3 798 of 
G 
2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2014 of the Armed 
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandimandir in Original Application 
No. 178 of2014 
WITH 
H 
C.A.No. 3799of2015
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
W. P. (C) No. 957 of2014 .. · 
Maninder Singh, ASG., Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Pradeep Kumar 
Yadav, Ashutosh Yadav, Ms. Man ju Sharma Jetley, R. Balasubramania, 
Nalin Kohli, Prabhas Bajaj, Amarjeet Singh, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, M.K. 
Maroria, B. V. Balaram Das, Dev.endra Singh, Anant K. Vatsya, Apurav 
Singhal, Narsingh Narain Rai, Advs. for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court wap delivered by 
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. The respondents in the 
aforementioned two appeals and the petitioner in the companion writ 
petition served as officers of Army Medical Corps, a Medical Service, 
under the Government oflndia, with more than 20 years of commissioned/ 
Group-A gazette service. The Army Medical Corps is a cadre of Doctors 
serving in the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is an organized medical 
service of Central Government. 
2. The respondents in the two appeals approached the Armed 
ForcAs Tribunal at New Delhi, by way of an Original Application 
contending that they were entitled to receive Dynamic Assured Career 
Prog;·ession as per the DACP Scheme, as approved by the Central 
Government. Even the writ petitioner in the companion writ petition has 
sought similar relief. He has prayed for a direction against the Central 
Government to implement the DACP scheme even in relation to the 
medical officers/doctors who are commissioned officers of the Armed 
ForcAs. 
3. An Original Application seeking sim':~. relief was filed
by one 
Col. Sanjeev Seltgal' . The same was allowed by the Tribunal vide 
order dated 18" July 2011. In that case, the Tribunal had noted the 
stand of the department (appellants) that the matter regarding 
implementation of DACP scheme qua the doctors in AMC was still 
under examination. Further, the appropriate Authority was expected to 
take a decision in that behalf after examining the issue in due course. 
The Tribunal, however; proceeded to dispose of the said Original 
Application in the following terms: 
"Heard tlte learned counsel for tlte botlt the parties and 
perused the documents including Annexures 1,2 and 3 . 
. 
' 0.A. No. 488 of 2011 before the Armed Forces Tribunal at Chandigarh 
497 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
498 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 1 S.C.R. 
There is no denial that the DACP Scheme is equally 
applicable to AMC Cadre. The scheme has already been 
implemented in several Departments. However. the same 
has not been implemented in the Armed Forces for the 
reasons bes/ known to them and the matter is hinging 
for the last about three years. This is clearly detrimental 
tc the interest of the AMC officers. It ought to have 
been implemented much earlier by the Ministry of 
Defence and the concerned authorities of Armed 
Forces. 
In the facts and circumstances, the Respondents are 
directed lo issue instructions for the implementation of 
the DACP Scheme in the light of Annex11res A-I A-2 
and A-3 attached with the application within three 
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 
With the above direction, this application stands 
disposed of". 
This decision became final consequent to the dismissal of Civil 
Appeal filed by the Department before this Court. 
4. Relying on the said decision, the Tribunal allowed the two Original 
E 
Applications filed by the respondents in the aforementioned appeals. 
The Tribunal also directed the department to issue instructions for 
implementation of the DACP Scheme and by placing the concemed 
respondents to the 4'' financial upgradation of grade pay of Rs. I 0,000/ 
- under the DACP Scheme. The original application filed by the 
respondents in C.A. No. 3798 of2015, was allowed by the Armed Forces 
F 
Tribunal
at New Delhi, being 0.A. 178 of 2014, on l 7'h April, 2014. 
Similarly, the Original Application No. 108 of2014 filed by the respondents 
in C.A. No. 3799of2015 was allowed videorderdated 9m April, 2014. 
The department has assailed these orders in the respective appeals. 
5. When the present appeals were pending for consideration, the 
G 
petitioner in companion W.P. No. 957 of2014 approached this Court 
praying for the following relief: 
H 
i. 
"Issue a mandamus for direction lo the respondents 
thereby to implement the recommendations of 6•• Pay 
Commission from the date of issuance of Official
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
499 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
Memorandum (OM) dated 29.10.2008 issued by the 
A 
Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family 
Welfare, CHS division, in Army Medical Corps (AMC) 
within a specific time; 
ii. Pass any such other order(s) as deemed fit and proper 
to secure the ends of justice". 
B 
6. It is an admitted position that the decision of the Armed Forces 
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Col. Sanjeev Seliga/ (supra) 
was assailed by the appellants by way of Civil Appeal D.No. 14342 of 
2013 before this Court. That was, however, summarily dismissed atthe 
preliminary hearing stage on 23"' September, 2013 by the Bench presided c 
by Justice T.S. Thakur (as he then was). The order reads thus: 
"Heard. 
Apart from the fact that there is an inordinate delay 
of 589 days in the filing of this application for grant of 
leave, we see no substantial question of law of general/ 
public importance arises for our consideration. The 
prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and 
the application dismissed". 
7. Nonetheless the present appeals and writ petition came to be 
admilted on 13'" April, 2015 after due consideration, by a Bench of two 
learned Judges of which Justice T.S. Thakur (as he then was) was a 
member. Further, when the appeals and writ petition were pending and 
heard on different dates, the appellants were granted liber!Y to file further 
affidavits. Keeping in mind the stand taken by the
department, this 
Court (presided by Chief Justice T.S.Thakur as he then was) vide order 
dated 11lhDecember,2015 permitted the appropriate Authority to revisit 
the matter afresh and take a decision as may be advised. Indeed, that 
was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the 
present proceedings. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, a 
formnl decision has been taken at the highest level in the Ministry of 
Defence, Government of India which has been communicated to the 
Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) vide letter dated 13'" 
January, 2016. We deem it apposite to reproduce the said letter in its 
entirety inasmuch as the department has reiterated the same stand in 
the two appeals as also to oppose the writ petition. The same reads 
thus: 
D 
E 
F 
G
500 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
0 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
No. 101112010-D(Medical) 
Government of India 
Ministry of Defence 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
"Annexure A-3 
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011 
Dated the 13'' January\ 2016 
To, 
The Chairman, 
Chiefs of Staff Commillee (COSC), 
COSC Secretariat, 
263D, South Block, 
New Delhi. 
Subject: Recommendations of the COSC regarding Dynamic 
Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme in 
respect of Defence Forces Personnel. 
Sir, 
l am directed to refer to the le lier No. Cl702616tt CPCIVol. 
Ill dated 25.8.2015 of the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee 
(COSC) 011 the above noted subject, and to say that as 
requested in the aforesaid le/ler, the case was given an 
opportunity to present the 'Case of the Services for grant of 
DACP Scheme to all Defence Forces Officers alongwilh the 
Armed Forces Medical Servich (AFMS) Officers before the 
H-:m 'ble Raksha Mantri on 08.01.2016. In the presentaiion 
made by the COSC, it was stated that ihe DACP Scheme, as 
rt'commended by the 6'' Central Pay Commission (CPCJ in 
para 3.6 of its report, {s applicable td AFMS doc/ors also. 
The COSC also referred to para 12 oflhe Resolution No.Jiii 
2008-IC dated 29. 08.2008, wherein, it has been slated that 
the DACP &heme for doctors will be extended uplo Senior 
·Administrative Grade (SAG) for Medical Doctors having 20 
, 'years of regular service, or 7 years of regular service in the 
Nun Functional Selec1i01i Grade (NFSGJ of Rs.87001- grade 
pay in P B-4 and
that all the medical doctors whether belonging 
to organized services or holding isolated posts will be covered 
by the DACP Scheme. 
2. During the .. 'i:ourse of the prese'11tatio11, the COSC was 
informed that since separate reco111111e11datio11s were made by
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
the 6'• CPC for Defence Forces Personnel, the recommendation 
made in para 3.6 is not applicable to the AFMS doctors as 
they are part and parcel of the Defence Forces. The COSC 
was also informed that the Resolution dated 29. 08.2008 of 
the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure is 
applicable only in respect of civilian government employees, 
as clearly stated in para 1 of the said Resolution and 
therefore, the recommendation made in para 12 thereof is 
applicable in respect of civilian doctors and not in respect of 
the AFMS doctors. 
3. Further, the relevant aspects for grant of DACP to Armed 
Forces Medical Services (AFMS) officers, as also for granJ 
of same Grade Pay to all Defence Officers, as recommended 
by the case have also been considered carefully. 
4. Upon such consideration, the first significant aspect which 
has clearly emerged is that the DACP is not at all applicable 
to Commissioned Officers serving as doctors in AFMS Cadre, 
for more than one reason which are set out herein below: 
(i) · As per existing Govt. orders commissioned officers 
serving as doctors belonging to AFMS constitute a separate 
class in themselves. They have a separate treatment with regard 
to recruitment procedure, appointment, terms and conditions 
of their employment including promotions, pay structure etc. 
as contained in Al 7411976 issued by the Govt. of India, 
Ministry of Defence. Being
commissioned officers they are 
employed in the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the 
Indian Navy, i.e., Army, Navy & Air Force. They are unlike 
other civilian doctors serving in Directorate General of Armed 
Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS), who do not become 
commissioned officers and for whom separate Govt. orders 
exist regarding their terms and conditions of service. 
(ii) Similarly, the procedure of appointment, terms and 
conditions of employmenl including promotions, pay structure 
etc. for other civilian doctors appointed in other Departments/ 
Ministries of the Govt. of India are entirely di.fferell/. These 
civilian doctors form/constitute a separate class .. Their service 
conditions etc. are dealt with by the respective Ministries like 
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Ministry of Railways, 
Ministry of Home Affairs in cases of doctors in Para Military 
501 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
502 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
Forces like Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police 
Force etc. and are governed by CCS Rules etc. 
(iii) Therefore, doctors who are commissioned officers 
in AFMS in the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the 
Indian Navy form a separate class. The successive Central 
Pay Commissions have also dealt with them separately, in the 
recommendations made by them to Govt. of India. The 
recommendations are also made by the Central Pay 
Commissions providing separately for the civilian doctors 
dealt with by other Ministries/Departments such as Ministry 
of Health & FIV. Ministry of Railways, etc. 
(iv) In the present case, the doctors constituting AFMS 
who are Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army, the Indian 
Afr Force and the Indian Nal'e are to be governed by the 
resolution/decision taken by the Ministry of Defence, Govt. 
of India on 30.08.2008 and not by the resolution/decision 
dated 29.08.2008 by the Ministry of Finance dealing with all 
civilian Gover11111e111 servants including doctors who are no/ 
commissioned officers in the Indian Army, rhe Indian Air Force 
and the Indian Navy. 
(v) 
The ex isling sanctioned hierarchy of promotion for 
doctors joining the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and 
the Indian Navy as commissioned officers is as under: 
(a) Captain/Flight Lieutenanr/Lieu/enant 
(b) Major/Squadron Leader/Lieutenant Commander 
-• 
(c) Lieu/enant Colonel/Wing
Commander/Commander 
(d) Colonel/Group Captain/Captain(Navy) 
(e) Brigadier/Air Commodore!Commodore(Navy) 
(/) Major General/Air Vice Marshal/Rear Admiral 
(g) Lieu/enant General/Air Marshal/Vice Admiral 
(vi) 
As per existing Govt. orders issued by the Govt. of India, 
Ministry of Defence, promotion in Army Medical Corps(AMC} upto 
the rank of Captain, Major and Lt. Col and their equivalents in the 
Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force are by time scale subject to 
meeling the laid down criteria and substantive promotion to the 
ranks ofColonel, Brigadier, Major General and Lieu/enant General 
and their equivalents in the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force will 
be by ·selection ·to fill the vacancies authorized from time to time
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
subject to the officer being found fit in all respects by appropriate 
selection board as approved by the competent authority. 
(vii) In terms of para JO of Al 7411976, officers granted 
permanent commission in the Army Medical Corps will receive pay 
and allowances at such rates and under such conditions as are laid 
down in Pay and Allowances Regulations for Officer of the Army, 
as amended from time to.time by the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of 
India in consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of 
Finance. 
(viii) It is evidentfi"om record that before the 5'" Central Pay 
Commission, doctors belonging to Central Health Service, Railways 
etc. had raised a grievance of stagnation, lack of promotional 
avenues etc. while dealing with terms and conditions of service and 
pay and allowances of doctors serving in Central Health.Service 
(CHS), the Railway Health Service and the Indian Ordnance 
Factories Services, etc. the 5'" Central Pay Commission noted that 
there was stagnation and lack of proper promotional avenues for 
such doctors in the aforesaid three services and as such, it 
recommended DACP for them. Therefore.for the benefit of doctors 
belonging to CHS, Railways, Indian Ordnance Factories Services-
the DACPwas recommended by the CPC only for the civilian doctors 
governed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare etc. in that 
category. This benefit was not extended to
commissioned officers 
serving as doctors in the three Services being governed by separate 
norms including pay scales, promotions, etc. laid down by the 
Ministry of Defence. 
· 
(ix) 
It is also evidentft·om record that the Ministry of Defence, 
Government of India, vide letter dated 28.10.2005. conveyed the 
sanction of the President to the reckonable commissioned service 
for promotion to the rank lieutenant Colonel and equivalent as 11 
years and for promotion to Colonel (Time Scale) as 24 years. Thus, 
this letter was directed towards restructuring of Non-Select Ranks in 
commissioned officers cadre of AFMS. 
(.>) 
The above mentioned order dated 28.10.2005 was aimed 
. at granting/aster promotions to the commissioned officers doctors 
constituting a separate class. The difference in promotional avenues 
and hierarchical cadre, pay and allowances and other benefits of 
AMC officers vis-a-vis civilian doctors is tabulated and shown as 
below: 
503 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 Ii'] I S.C.R. 
A 
Doctors 
of 
AFMS 
as 
Civilian Doctors under the 
Co1nn1issioned officers in the 
Central Health Schen1e etc. 
Indian Army, the Indian Air 
Force and the Indian Navv 
Governing 
Ministry of Defence (MoD) 
Ministry of Hea/Jh & Fami~v 
resolution issued 
vi de 
No. I (3)/2008-D 
Welfare dated 30.10.2008 
by the Govt. of (Pay/Services) 
dated 
issued pursuant to Ministry 
India 
30.8.2008 
of Finance resolution dated 
B 
29.8.2008 
Service conditions 
AFMS 
doctors 
are 
Governn1ent by different set 
Co1nn1issioned Officers in 
of ternis and conditions of 
Military Uniforn1 and are 
service as applicable under 
therefore 
part of Arn1ed 
the applicable rules such as 
Forces. 
All 
the 
service 
Central Civil Services (CCS) 
c 
conditions in the n1at1er of Rules 
etc. 
in 
respective 
pay and a//0111ances 
and 
Health services. 
service benefits applicable to 
other army personnel dre 
ann/icable to AFMS doctors. 
Grade Pay (GP) 
..... Rs. 6, /001-
After 
in1ple1'1enting 
the 
Rs.6,6001-
/ 
DACP schen1e 
Rs.5,4001-
' 
Rs.8,0001-
/ 
..... Rs. 6.6001-
D 
Rs.8, 7001-
Rs. 7. 600!- ..... Rs. I 0, 0001-
Rs.10,0001-
Rs.12,0001-
Promotional 
ii 
Captain/Flight 
After 
grant 
of 
DACP 
Avenue/hierarchy 
Lieutenant/Lieutenant 
pron1otion 
avenues 
of 
ii) Major/Squadron 
civilian doctors are: 
E 
Leader/Lieutenant 
(i) Medical Officers 
Con1mander 
(ii) Senior Medical Officers 
iii) Lieutenant Colonel/Wing 
(iii) Chief Medical Officer
Co111111ander/Con1mander 
(iv) Chief Medical 
Officer 
iv) Colonel/Group 
(NFSGJ 
Captain/Captain (Navy) 
(v) SAG 
'v) Brigadier/Air 
F 
C on1modore/C on1n1odore 
(Navy) 
vi) Major General/Air Vice 
Marshal/Rear Ad1niral 
I 
vii) Lieutenant 
General/Air 
Marshal/Vice Ad111iral 
viiiJDGAFMS 
G 
Other 
sen· ice 
Military Service Pay@ Rest. 
No such allo-a·ancelbenefit is 
benefits 
60001- pm for all officers up 
available to civilian doctors 
to 
the rank of Brig in 
dea/1 ~\·ith by the decisions of 
addition 
to 
Gmde 
Pay, 
the Ministry of Health & 
Outfit 
allowance, 
Kit 
Family Welfare. 
Maintenance 
Alloii'ance, 
Ration Money decided fron1 
H 
lin1e to time
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
[A.M. KHANWJLKAR, J.] 
(.ri) It is evident from record that Armed Forces Personnel 
(Commissioned Officers) and Civilian Government employees are 
two different classes, the Central Pay Commissions (CPC) make 
separate recommendations for them. The 6'" CPC also made separate 
recommendations with regard to 'Pay Scales of Defence Forces 
Personnel' (Chapter 2.3) and 'Allowances & Conditions of service 
of Defence Forces Personnel' (Chapter 4.10). Therefore, when 
the decisions wos to be taken by the Govt. of India, Ministry 
of Defence with regard to recommendatio.ns of 6'" .Central 
Pay Commission regarding grant of pay and allowances etc. 
to the defence personnel, the draft resolution was examined 
by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. 
(xii) 
A note was issued by the Department o/Expen.diture 
on 29. 08.2008 making it abundantly clear that the 
recommendation of Dynamic ACP has nothing to do with the 
· doctors inducted as commissioned officers in the Indian Army, 
the Indian Air Force .and the Indian Navy by, inter alia, 
observing as under: 
"Ministry of Defence may please refer to Draft Resolution 
regarding implementation of the Government's decision on 
Pay Commission's recommendations relating to Officers of 
Defence Forces for vetting before issue. 
2. A point (ix) has been added in the Draft Resolution 
regarding the enhanced Grade Pay for middle level officers 
(from Captain/Equ. To Brigadierlequ).
3. In the annexure to the Resolution where revised pay scales 
have been indicated, for the sake of clarity and understanding, 
MOD may like to put two tables simultaneously one containing 
the recommendations of the Sixth CPC and the .other showing 
final decision of the Government in this regard. Similar tables 
have been put in this Ministry's resolution relating to. civilian 
Government employees. 
4. In the Annexure to the R~solution relating to Allowances 
concessions & benefits and ~qnditions of service of Defence 
Forcespersonnel, against iteni 8, point no.(ii) relating to grant 
of Dynamic ACP to doctors has been deleted, as the same is 
not applicable to doctors iii the Defence Forces ....... " 
505 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
506 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
(xiii) The above-mentioned unambiguous pos1110n 
incorporated in para 4 of the note dated 29.08.2008 of the 
Department of Expenditure to the effect that DACP Scheme 
has nothing to do and is not applicable to doctors 
(Commissioned Officers) in the Indian Army, the Indian Air 
Force and the Indian Navy, and was accordingly not 
mentioned in the eventual Resolution issued by the Ministry 
of Defence, Govt. of India on 30.08.2008 implementing the 
recommendations of the 6'h CPC. 
(xiv) Therefore, as in the past, two separate Resolutions 
were issued by the Government conveying the decisions on 
the recommendations of the 6'h CPC. One Resolution was 
issued by the Ministry of Finance in respect of the Civilian 
employees vide resolution No.I/112008-JC dated 29.8.2008 
and another Resolution was issued by the Ministry of Defence 
in respect of Armed Forces Personnel (including AFMS 
Commissioned Officers) vide No.1(30)12008-D (Pay/Services) 
dated 30.08.2008. 
(xv) 
The civilian doctors including civilian doctors in the 
AFMS (other than Commissioned Officer~) are governed by 
the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Ministry of 
Finance, Dept. of Expenditure read with the Circular by the 
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare dated 30.10.2008. 
(xvi) 
As per Govt. orders the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 
deals only with the. civiliw_1 employees of the .Central Govt. in 
Groups 'A', 'B ', 'C ', '!P including
civilian doctors in the 
DGAFMS (other than Commissioned Officers). The DACP 
Scheme for doctors in the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 dealt 
in para 12 is only with regard to civilian doctors including 
civilian doctors in the DGAFMS (other than Commissioned 
Officers). 
(xvii) The Resolution of the Ministry of Defence dated 
30. 08.2008 is for Defence personnel including doctors who 
are appointed as 'Commissioned Officers'. Para 5 of the said 
resolution of the Ministry of Defence dated 30.08.2008 is 
reproduced as under;-
" ..... 5. The decisions taken by the Government accordingly
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
on various recommendations of the Commission in respect of 
officers of Armed Forces are indicated in the statement at 
Annexure-I to this resolution. The existing pay scales of 
Officers of the Armed Forces are indicated in the Statement 
at Annexure-11 ..... " 
(xviii) Item No. 7 of Annexure-I and Item No. 7 of Annexure-
IB appended to the Resolution of the Ministry of Defence 
dated 30.08.2008 providing separately for the pay for AMC 
Officers and also payment of various allowances for the 
doctors working as commissioned officers in the Armed 
Forces. 
(xix) it is also clear from the recommendations made by 
the 6'' CPC in para 3.6. 7 of its Report that 'the DACP Scheme 
recommended by 5" Central Pay Commission for different 
streams of doctors should be extended to all doctors including 
those working in isolated posts. The promotions under DACP 
for other categories of doctors will be guided by the same 
conditions as applied in case of doctors working in Central 
Health Scheme" is in respect of the Civilian Government 
employees. Accordingly, the same was mentioned in para 12 
of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Deptt. Of 
Expenditure, Ministry of Finance which was in respect of the 
Civilian employees. In pursuance of this Resolution of Deptt. 
Of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Health 
& Family Welfare (Mio H&FW) vide their O.M No.A.450121 
212008-CHS.V dated
29.10.2008 extended the DACP Scheme 
to all medical doctors, whether belonging to organized 
services or holding isolated posts. Thus, it is clear that the 
O.M dated 29.10.2008 of Mb H&FW is applicable only in 
respect of civilian doctors and not in respect of the AF.Ms 
doctors, as the AFMS doctors are part and parcel of Armed 
Forces Personnel. 
(xx) However, for the civilian doctors of DGAFMS who 
are not commissioned Officers, Ministry of Defence issued a 
Circular dated 15.01.2009 making available for them the 
benefit of DACP Scheme. As per existing orders civilian 
doctors (who are not the Commissioned Officers) working as 
General Duty Medical Officers and Teaching Sub-Cadre in 
507 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
508 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
the DGAFMS are always dealt with and provided for with 
same service conditions/benefits which are decided in relation 
to other civilian doctors in Central Government services by 
the respective authorities such as Ministry of Health & Family 
Welfare, Railways, Ordnance Factories etc. and their service 
conditions decided by the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India 
for the commissioned officers constituting AFMS Cadre. 
· (xxi) The doctors inducted as Commissioned Officers in 
the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy 
h<1ving at least 7 promotional positions in their respective 
services i.e. Army, Navy and Air Force, having different pay 
scales etc. - have no concern whatsoever with the terms and 
conditions of service of the civilian doctors. As demonstrated 
above, this distinction between the category of doctors 
working as commissioned officers in the Indian Army, the 
Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy governed by the norms 
laid down by the Ministry of Defence and the civilian doctors 
governed by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Railways 
etc. - has always been well appreciated and acknowledged 
· by the successive Pay Commissions including the 5'" and 6'" 
Central pay Commissions. 
(xxii) The record of Court cases mentioned and sought to 
be relied upon by the case nowhere reveals that the above-
mentioned clear and unambiguous distinction between these 
two categories of
doctors, i.e. commissioned officers in the 
Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy and 
civilian doctors were properly disclosed/placed/explained to 
the Hon 'ble Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Chandigarh Bench 
while defending the OA filed by the Col. (Reid.} Sanjeev Sehgal 
for implementation of DACP Scheme for AFMS officers. These 
facts were also not placed before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court 
in Civil Appeal D No.14342 of 2013. In the two subsequent 
court cases decided by the Ld. AFT, Principal Bench, New 
Dq/hi while defending the OAs filed by Col. (Retd.) Aja ma/ 
Singh Bhayal and Gp. Capt. (Retd.) K.P. Singh, again the true 
and correct facts in this regard were not placed. before the 
AFT. 
(xxiii) It is evident from the order dated 18. 7.2011 in 0.A.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
No.488 of 2011 passed by Ld. AFT. In other words, the 
inapplicable Resolution dated 29.8.2008 was placed and 
relied upon in O.A. No.488 of 2011 and the correct Resolution 
dated 30.08.2008 of the Ministry of Defence applicable in 
that case was not placed before the Ld. AFT. 
(xx iv) When the above mentioned aspects came to be 
noticed, the mat/er was again examined and the case was 
taken up with the Ld. Allorney General for India, who advised 
the Govt. to file appeals before the Hon 'hie Supreme Court 
of India in the two cases of Col. (Reid.) Ajamal Singh Bhayal 
and Gp. Capt. (Reid.) K.P. Singh. 
(xxv) Therefore, the official records of the Govt. clearly 
establish and demonstrate that doctors belonging to two 
different categories/classes are treated and provided for 
separately. It would therefore not be permissible to grant 
benefit of DACP (meant for civilian doctors including the 
civilian doi:tors in the DGAFMS) to the doctors inducted as 
Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army, the Indian Air 
Force and the Indian Navy. 
(xxvi) The issue of grant of DACP Scheme with higher 
Grade Pay to doctors and higher Grade Pay to .other 
commissioned officers of the three Services as recommended 
by the COSC is not only impermissible but also has far 
reaching serious huge financial and other structural 
ramifications for the Defence Forces. 
(xxvii) The impermissible demand [by creating a confusion
by not placing correct facts] for making available the benefit 
of DACP Scheme meant only for civilian doctors including 
the civilian doctors in the DGAFMS to the doctors -inducted 
as Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army. the Indian Air 
Force and the Indian Navy who are dealt with and provided 
509 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
for by the decisions of the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India 
G 
- has a potential of creating serious issues in the Indian Army, 
the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy having 7 promotional 
avenues for doctors inducted as commissioned officers and 
• 
are at par with the other non-doctors commissioned officers 
in the Armed Forces. ·Such an impermissible demand also 
H
510 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] I S.C.R. 
inevitably carries with it a huge possibility of creating an 
irreversible imbalance in the working of the commissioned 
o;]icers in all the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the 
Indian Navy in that, the hitherto existing same yardstick for 
doctors inducted as commissioned officers and non-doctor 
commissioned officers in various Arms and Services in all the 
three Services (approx. 70,000). 
(xxviii) In fact, it is on record that because of these reasons 
the case also inter a/ia, observed in its earlier communication 
that grant of DACP to doctors in AFMS will adversely impact 
intra-cadre DynamiCs iff respect of 70, 000 Commissioned 
Officers. The COSC had also stated that the implementation 
of DACP should necessarily be in consonance with Service 
ethos and should subscribe and not upset the well established 
command and control structure. 
7. It is reiterated that in view of the above mentioned clear 
distinction between two different classes of doctors i.e. 
Commissioned Officers in the AFMS and civilian doctors [not 
in. the class of Commissioned Officers}, there was never any 
recommendation by the 6'" [being the appropriate body} for 
granting DACP to doctors recruited as Commissioned Officers 
in the three Services. 
8. In view of the position slated above, it is clear !hat the 
DACP Scheme as brought out in Mio H&FW O.M. dated 
29.10.2008, is not applicable for AFMS doctors working as
Commissioned Officers in the three Services and therefore, 
the same had not been and cannot be extended to them. 
9. This issues with the approval of Hon 'hie Raksha Mantri. 
Yours faithfully, 
(D.K. Paliwal) 
Deputy Secretary (Medical)" 
8. The respondents in the two appeals and the petitioner in the 
writ petitiDn, however contend that the decision of the Tribunal d11ted 
l 8'h July, 2011 in the case of Col. Sanjeev Seit gal (supra) having attained 
finality with the dismissal of the civil appeal preferred by the department 
before this Court on 25'h September, 2013. it is not open to the department 
to contend to the contrary. Any new plea to be taken by department is
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
hit by the principles of resjudicata. Further, the department cannot be 
permitted to rely on new documents such as Memorandum dated 29" 
August, 2008 and 30'h August, 2008 which were never pressed into service 
in the earlier proceedings, that the department has acquiesced in the 
decision in Col. Sehgal's case (supra) consequent to the dismissal of 
the appeal against that decision by this Court, by not preferring any 
review againstthe decision of this Court. Also because, after the decision 
of the Supreme Court in the case of Col. Sehgal (supra), the department 
took positive steps and decided to act upon the direction given by the 
Tribunal - as is manifest from the office note prepared by Shri D.K. 
Paliwal dated 22"' September, 2014. That has been duly approved by 
the Defence 
Secretary, Shri R.K. Mathur on I O'h September, 2014 
and finally by the then Defence Minister himself on l 3'h September, 
2014. With the change of Government, it is urged that it is not open to 
the new Government or the new Defence Minister to take a different 
view of the matter and more so in violation of the direction issued by the 
Tribunal and confir111ed by the Supreme Court. It is contended that 
consequent to the decision of the Supreme Court rejecting the appeal 
preferred by the department in Col. Sehgal's case (supm), the direction 
given by the Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) stood merged on the principle 
of
doctrine of merger. Therefore, the decision now taken by the present 
establishment is 'in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court. It is 
submitted that the appeals filed by the department are not maintainable 
and in any case the department cannot be permitted to rely on documents 
which were not part of the record before the Tribunal when such a plea 
was not taken before the Tribunal either in the Or;ginal Applications 
filed by the respondents in the two appeals or m the previous round of 
proceedings in the case of Col. Sanjeev Sehgal (supm). 
9. The respondents have alo'.l invited our attention to the incorrect 
certification given by the advocate on record that no additional facts, 
new documents or grounds have been taken in the appeal. On merits, 
it is contended that the recommendation made by the 6" Pay Commission 
does not expressly exclude the application of DACP Scheme to the 
Doctors in the Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS). On the other 
hand, it is wide enough to include them. Therefore, extending benefit of 
DACP to Doctors in AMC as has been granted to other doctors in 
organized and unorganized sectors in !he Central Government is 
imperative. They further contend that there is no distinction made by 
. the order dated 15" January, 2009 between the sub cadre of civilian 
511 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
512 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) I S.C.R. 
doctors and doctors belonging to the cadre of regular Armed Forces. 
Similarly, even the 6th Pay Commission makes no such distinction. In 
any case, such a discrimination is not permissible in law. They further 
submitted that the appeals filed by the department are devoid of merits 
and deserve to be dismissed; and instead a direction be given to the 
department to give the benefit of the DACP Scheme to doctors in the 
Army Medical Corps on the same terms as given to doctors in other sub 
cadres oiAFMC vide order No.12017 /CMO/DGAFMS/DG-28/126/09/ 
D(Med.) dated 15'" January, 2009 and arrears be paid to them with 18 
per cent interest per annum with effect from 29'h October, 2008. The 
respondents and writ petitioners have also prayed for imposing exemplary 
costs on the department for pursuing untenable pleas. 
10. The moot question for our consideration is: whether the medical 
doctors serving as Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces are covered 
by the Ministry of Defence's Resolution dated 30'h August 2008 or 
Ministry of Finance's Resolution dated 29'h August 2008? Secondly, 
whether that issue is conclusively answered by the Tribunal in Col. 
Sellgal'!i case (supra)? The decision of the Tribunal as upheld by this 
Court in the case of Col. Sanjeev Seliga/ (supra), was in the context 
of the relief claimed for implementation of the Dynamic Assured Career 
Progression Scheme (DACP) as approved by the
Central Government. 
In that case reliance was placed on para 3 of the Office Memorandum 
bearing No.F.No.A-45012/2/08-CH-V dated 29'" October 2008 issued 
by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 
The saici proceeding was contested by the department. The Tribunal 
noted the contents of the reply filed by the Department to oppose the 
said Original Application, wherein it was admitted that Government of 
India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has implemented the DACP 
Scheme in respect of Officers of Central Health Services and Medical/ 
Dental Doctors in Central Government respectively. The Tribunal also 
noted the stand taken by the Department that the said scheme in Defence 
has not been implemented and the matter is under consideration at various 
levels before military authorities and depending on the decision to be 
taken at the appropriate level, necessary orders will be passed in due 
course . .A.fter having noticed this contention of the department, the Tribunal 
disposed of the Original Application vide order dated 18'" July 2011, the 
relevant portion whereof has been extracted in the opening part of this 
judgment. That decision was challenged before this Court by way of 
Civil Appeal D.No.1434/2013, which was dismissed at the preliminary
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
hearing stage on 23'' September 2013. The order passed by this Court 
has also been extracted hereinabove. 
11. On a fair reading of the said decision of the Tribunal dated 
l.8•h July 2011, all that it records is that there was no denial that the 
DACP scheme is equally applicable to AMC Cadre. Further, the Scheme 
has already been implemented in civil departments except in the Armed 
Forc~s. On that basis, the Tribunal issued a direction to the Department 
to issue instructions for implementation of the DACP Scheme in the 
light of the Office Memorandum dated 29'h October 2008 issued by the 
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, dated I 8'h November 2008 issued 
by the Ministry of Finance and dated 27'h November 2008 issued by the 
Ministry of Defence. 
12. According to the respondents (in the aforementioned appeals), 
therefore, it is not open to the department to contend to the contrary or 
take any position which would inevitably result in over reaching the 
decision of this Court which has attained finality. The appellants, on the 
other hand, contend that the factual position recorded by the Tribunal is 
contrary to the official record, which, however, was not placed before 
the Tribunal or before this Court. In that, the correct factual position 
was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and also this Court, in the 
Civil Appeal filed before this Court against the decision of the Tribunal.
Nevertheless, considering the far reaching financial and structural 
ramifications for the Defence Forces and in larger public interest, it is 
essential to examine the core issue about the applicability of DACP 
Scheme to Commissioned Officers of Anned Forces. It is submitted 
that the department intends to proceed against tl1c officials responsible 
for filing such inaccurate and deficient pleadings - which entailed in 
recording a finding that there was no denial that the DACP scheme is· 
equally applicable to AMC Cadr~. There is ample contemporaneous 
record to indicate that the Scheme was made applicable only to Civilian 
Doctors and not to Commissioned Officers serving in AMC Cadre. It is 
not a case of the department approbating and reprobating, but a case of 
an inaccurate plea being taken before the Tribunal which led to the said 
finding. If the officials responsible for filing such pleadings, in the 
departmental action are found to have done it intentionally, it would be a 
case bordering on fraud. The recommendation made in respect of the 
DACP scheme by the 6"' Pay Commission was limited to Civilian Doctors 
(not in respect of Commissioned Officers in three Services). Besides 
the resolution passed by the Ministry of Finance dated 29'h August 2008, 
513 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
s 14 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
bearing No.1/1/08-IC made it explicitthat DACP scheme was applicable 
only in respect of civilian employees in the organized and unorganized 
sectors employed by the Central Government as also in the All India 
Services and to Chairpersons or Members of regulatory bodies. Besides 
the said resolution, the Ministry ofFinance, Department of Expenditure, 
Implementation Cell on 29'" August 2008 vide its communication made it 
amply clear to the Ministry of Defence that the proposal regarding 
implementation of the Government decision of pay revision qua Officers 
of ArrneJ Forces for grant ofDACP to Doctors who are Commissioned 
Officers in AMC Cadre has been deleted as the same is not applicable 
to the Doctors in the Defence Forces. The Ministry of Defence 
accordingly, on 30" August 2008 issued a resolution extending the 
benefits of other allowances (other than DAC.P) for the Commissioned 
Officers in three Services as recommended by the 6" Pay Commission 
and approved by the Government. In other words, the appropriate 
authority had consciously not extended the benefit ofDACP Scheme to 
Doctors who were Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. Further, 
according to the appellants the recommendation of tlie 6•h Pay 
Commission to grant DACP to Doctors was limited to Civilian Doctors 
and not to Doctors who were Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. 
The 6"' Pay Commission has provided a large number ofother
allowances 
to Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. 
It is stated that Armed 
Forces Medical Services is a tri - service organization i.e. those who 
are commissioned as Doctors can be employed in any of the three 
services, namely (i) Indian Army, (ii) Indian Navy, and (iii) Indian Air 
Force. Commissioned Officers are governed by Army Instructions 74/ 
1976. It is submitted that doctors joining the three services as 
Commi~sioned Officers get the rank of:-
(i) Lt/Capt/Flight Lieutenant /Flying Officer 
(ii) Captain/Major/Squadron Leader/Lt. Comdr. 
(iii) Lt.Colonel/Wing Comdr./Comdr. 
G 
(iv) Colonel/Group Capt/Capt.Navy 
(v) Brigadier /AirCmdr./Cmdr.Navy 
(vi) Major General/ Air Vice Marshal/Rear Admiral 
(vii) Lt.General/Air Marshal/Vice Admiral. 
H 
Their promotion in AMC Cadre up to the rank of Captain, Major
UNION OF JNDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
and Lt. Col. are by time scale subject to meeting the prescribed criteria 
and substantive promotion to the ranks of Colonel, Brigadier, Major 
General and Lieutenant General is by selection. As per para 1 0 of Army 
Instructions 74/1976, officers granted permanent commission in the Army 
Medical Corps receive pay and allowances at the rates laid down in 
Pay and Allowances Regulations for officers of the Army, as amended 
·from time to time by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in 
consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. On 
the other hand, the Doctors serving in Ministry of Defence are categorized 
as civilian medical doctors. In so far as civilian medical doctors.are 
concerned, the Government has already extended DACP Scheme in 
terms of Circular issued by the Ministry of Defence dated l 5'h January 
2009. The fact that no express denial was stated in the pleadings filed 
befo1e the Tribunal cannot be construed as admission of the Department 
to extend DACP even to doctors working in AMC Cadre. If DACP 
Scheme is extended to doctors working in AMC Cadre, it would result in 
an anomalo11s situatfon. For,.other Commissioned Officers working on 
the same rank would not be entitled for DACP considering the service 
conditfons of the Commissioned Officers who are governed by the Army 
Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950 as the case 
may lie. A
distinction has always been made between AMC Cadre and 
other Medical Services in the Ministry of Defence. Even the previous 
Pay Commission reports maintained that distinction while making 
recommendations, as has been done by the 6th Pay Commission. The 
6"' Pay Commission has not expressly recommended application ofDACP 
Scheme to Conimissioned Officers in AMC Cadre, as can be discerned 
from the said report itself. While it has limited that recommendation to 
civilian employees it has not done so to doctors generally. 
13. Reverting to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Col. 
~an}e~v Sel11:al (supra), in our opinion, the observation made therein 
will have to be construed in the context of the final direction issued to 
the Department. The authorities were directed to issue instructions for 
the implementation of DACP scheme in the light of Annexure A-1, A-2 
and A-3 attached with the Original Application within three months from 
the date of receipt of copy of the order. That direction will have to be 
construed to mean that the authorities must act in accordance with law 
and extend DACP scheme even to the Commissioned Officers of AMC 
Cadre, if permissible in law. No more and no less. Therefore, this 
Court whilst dismissing the Civil Appeal on 23" September201 I observed 
515 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
516 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. · 
that no substantial question of law of general/public importance arises 
for consideration. That decision cannot be given an expansive meaning 
so as to be read that de-hors the legal position, DACP scheme be 
extended even to doctors working as Commissioned Officers in AMC 
Cadre. Thus understood, it must follow that the issues raised in the present 
appeals by the Government and in particular by the Ministry of Defence 
are not concluded nor have they attained finality. On this finding, it may 
not be necessary for us to dilate on the possibility of an inaccurate reply 
affidavil having been filed before the Tribunal to oppose the Original 
Application of Col. Sanjeev Sehgal or for that matter the circumstances 
in which the appropriate Authority was inclined to implement DACP 
scheme qua Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces. It is possible that 
office note in that behalf was prepared on an erroneous assumption that 
the Court has directed that the DACP scheme be implemented even in 
the case of doctors working as Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces. 
We, however, leave it open to the department to proceed against the 
concerned officers who were responsible for creating such confusion 
and for filing an inaccurate affidavit and for not bringing on record entire 
material relevant for deciding the principal question about the entitlement 
of doctors working as Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre to
receive 
DACP. 
14. The next question is: whether this Court should itself examine 
the gamut of arguments regarding applicability of DACP Scheme even 
to Doctors serving as Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. Indeed, 
the entire material has now been placed before us, on the basis of which, 
it may b~ possible to answer the matters in issue. The appellants have 
relied on the Office Memorandum dated 29'" August, 2008 issued by the 
Ministry of Finance and the resolution issued by the Ministry of Defence 
dated JO•h August, 2008. The former Office Memorandum including the. 
Office Noting on the file at different levels, prima facie, indicates that 
there wa5 a clear exclusion ofappl icabil ity ofDACP Scheme to Doctors 
working as Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. In addition, our 
attention has been invited to the reference made to the 6'" Pay Commission 
and the specific recommendation made by the 6'" Pay Commission for 
civilian doctors and separate recommendations for the Commissioned 
Officers of AMC Cadre. Since the Tribunal has not either in the case of 
Col. Sanjeev Sehgal (supra) or in the impugned decision examined all 
these aspects on its merits, we deem it appropriate to relegate the parties 
before the Tribunal for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh without
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR. 
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
being influenced by the observations made in the order passed in case of 
Col. Sanjeev Sehgal (supra) or the dismissal of appeal against that 
decision by this Court on23"' September, 2011. We say so because we 
are of the considered opinion that the direction issued by the Tribunal in 
the case of Col. Sanjeev Sehgal (supra) to the Department for issuing 
instructions was obviously to decide the issue under consideration in 
accordance with law, on the question of applicability ofDACP Scheme 
even to the Doctors working as Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. 
As noted in the earlier part of the judgment, controversy has far-reaching 
structural ramifications to the Armed Forces besides financial implications 
and the possibility of a discrimination within the cadre if additional benefit 
was to be given only to Doctors working as Commissioned Officers in 
AMC Cadre and not to other Commissioned Officers working on the 
same rank. This requires deeper consideration. For that reason, this 
Court during the pendency of these appeals had permitted the appropriate 
authority to examine the entire matter and take a necessary decision. 
Pursuant to that liberty, the Deputy Secretary (Medical) of the Ministry 
of Defence, Government of India, has informed of the decision of the 
Government vi de communication dated J3 1h January, 2016 to the 
Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC). It would be open to the
original applicants (respondents in the appeals)to question the correctness 
thereof in the remanded proceedings. This would provide an opportunity 
to both sides to pursue their pleas and also facilitate the Tribunal to 
examine the correctness of the position and answer the matters in issue 
appropriately. 
15. For the nature of order we propose to pass, it is unnecessary 
to dilate further on the other contentions. To do substantial and complete 
justice to the parties, we leave all questions on merits open to be 
considered by the Tribunal in the first instance. In other words, we are 
not inclined to accept the grievance of the respondents in the appeals 
that the appellants should not be permitted to rely on new documents 
which were not part of the record before the Tribunal or for that matter 
incorrect declaration and affidavit filed in support of the present appeals. 
Instead, we give liberty to both sides to file further pleadings and place 
on record any further documents before the Tribunal. 
16. The appellants must file a comprehensive affidavit accompanied 
by all the relevant documents on which they would like to place reliance 
to buttress the stand as to why DACP Scheme cannot be extended to 
Doctors ·engaged as Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. That 
517 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l S.C.R. 
A 
affidavit be filed within four weeks from today. The respondents (original 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
. applicants) will be free to file a response to that affidavit within three 
weeks from the date of service of such affidavit on them. The Tribunal 
may endeavour to dispose of the remanded original applications 
expeditiously preferably within six months of the completion of pleadings. 
1 i. As regards the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the 
Constitution, we dispose of the same with liberty to the writ petitioner to 
either intervene in the remanded proceedings before the Tribunal or to 
file a fresh Original Application for the relief claimed by him in the present 
writ petition, which can be decided by the Tribunal along with the other 
remanded original applications. 
18. Accordingly, we partly allow the two appeals preferred by 
Union oflndia and thereby set aside the order(s) passed by the Tribunal 
in the respective appeals and instead remand the respective Original 
Applications to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the entire matter de 
novo. 
19. Needless to observe, the Tribunal may decide all the remanded 
original applications or any furtheroriginal application on the same subject 
matter a,ialogously to avoid any conflicting decision and multiplicity of 
proceedings. 
20. We grant liberty to the original applicant(s) to amend the 
pleadings, if so advised, including to ask for further relief. In that event,
however, the Tribunal will give opportunity to the appellants (respondents 
in the Origina!Application(s))to file a response to the amended pleadings 
and further relief, as the case may be. 
21. Both the appeals and writ petition are disposed of in the above 
terms with no order as to costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals and Wric Pecition disposed of. 
··.-,