http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5353 of 2000

PETITIONER: Union of India and Anr

RESPONDENT: S.S. Gill

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/07/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(With C.A. No. 3133 /2007 @ SLP (C) No.1961 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 5354 of 2000 and WP(C) No.596 of 2000)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted in SLP (C) No.1961 of 2003

2.      In the appeal relating to SLP (C) No.1961 of 2003  challenge is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi  High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.702 of 2000. Civil  Appeal No. 5353 of 2000 is directed against the judgment of  the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Letters Patent Appeal  filed by the Union of India. Civil Appeal No.5354 of 2000 is  filed by one R.K. Dua who was not a party in the Letters  Patent Appeal before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.   Writ Petition No.596 of 2000 also involves the similar dispute.  

3.      The controversy relates to the interpretation of Rule 8(b)  of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short the  ’Rules’). According to the Union of India, the Short Service  Commissioned Officers (in short ’SSCOs’) are not eligible to get  their past service in Army counted  in the Central Reserve  Police Force (in short ’CRPF’) for determining seniority,  whereas according to the SSCOs the seniority is required to be  determined after considering the unbroken service in the  Armed Forces. While the SSCOs placed strong reliance on the  decision of this Court dated 21.1.1986 in P.G. Shetty and Ors.  v. Union of India upholding the decision of the Delhi High  Court (UBS Teotia and Ors v. Union of India),  the Union of  India placed reliance  on a decision of this Court in Ravi Paul  and Ors. v. Union of India  and Ors. (1995 (3) SCC 300) 4.      The Delhi High Court has held that the SSCOs are not  entitled to the benefit of past service in Army while the Jammu  and Kashmir High Court has held otherwise.  

5.      At this juncture, in order to appreciate the rival  submissions it is to be noted that there are some factual  aspects which need to be noted. The SSCOs were appointed as  Emergency Commissioned Officers on short service in the  Army. They were offered appointments in the CRPF. In the  offer of appointment in respect of appellant Nos. 4, 7, 10 and  11 before the Delhi High Court in LPA, the following terms are  relevant:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       "4. The other terms of appointment will  be as follows:

(i)     You are being appointed as direct  officer under rule 105(4)(iv) and  shall not be entitled to reckon your  Army Service towards seniority in  the CRPF except pay fixation in one  increment for each completed year’s  commissioned service."  

6.      In R.C. Sahi & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1999  (1) SCC 482) it was observed as follows:

                "17. In view of the above observations, it is  clear that in the absence of a provision to give  benefit of the past service in army service to the  ECOs in the main Rule, the Executive Instructions  are permissible and the Executive Instructions  dated 5.7.1972 were issued to achieve that object.  Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned counsel could not  seriously contend that if the Executive Instructions  of 5.7.1972 are to be applied and the past army  service of the ECOs is added, the private  respondents will be senior to the petitioners. It is  the specific case of respondents 1 and 2 that the  impugned seniority list was prepared on the basis of  the Executive Instructions dated 5.7.1972.  Therefore, there is no room for doubt that the  seniority list now prepared by respondents 1 and 2  is quite in accordance with law and in compliance  with the directions of this Court in Sahi’s case."   

7.      In Ravi Paul’s case (supra) it was observed as follows:

       "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  Service 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 8(b) to indicate that the earlier  Army service of an Army Officer or a 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 5-7-1972  addressed to the Director General BSF and CRPF as  well as IG (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 v. Union of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

India (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  come on deputation have to retain their original  seniority and will get the benefit of their Army  service.  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 0fficer 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 a re-employed Army Officer  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 v.  Union of India (supra). For the same reasons the  observations in the order dated 21-1-1986 passed  by this Court in special leave petitions arising out of  Delhi High Court decision in U.B.S. Teotia 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 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".

8.      In view of what is stated by this Court in the aforesaid  two decisions, the inevitable conclusion is that the judgment  of the Delhi High Court is in order and needs no interference  while that of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is  indefensible and therefore is set aside.  Civil Appeal No.5353 of  2000 is allowed while the other appeals are dismissed. No  order need be passed in the writ petition.  

9.      There will be no order as to costs.