Holding

Seniority of an employee is determined by service in the cadre to which he belongs, and the Tribunal’s order fixing AMEOT seniority under Rule 11 of the 1951 Rules is lawful and not liable to interference.

Summary

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of officers in Class ‘A’ of the Indian Defence Estate Service who were promoted from two different streams – Assistant Military Estate Officers (AMEO) and Assistant Military Estate Officers (Technical) (AMEOT). AMEOT had been appointed on UPSC recommendation from 1964 but were not incorporated into Class II of the 1951 Military Land and Cantonment Service Rules until 1976, leaving their seniority and promotion status uncertain. The respondents filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that AMEOT’s seniority should be fixed under Rule 11 of the 1951 Rules on the basis of regular service, effectively treating them as regular officers. The Union of India appealed, arguing that the Tribunal’s order was erroneous, that the officers were merely ad‑hoc, and that the appeal was motivated by potential financial liability. The Supreme Court affirmed that seniority is determined by service in the cadre to which an officer belongs, found that the Tribunal’s order cured a prior injustice, and held that there was no ground for interference; consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the seniority of AMEOT officers appointed between 1964 and 1976 should be determined under Rule 11 of the 1951 Military Land and Cantonment Service Rules.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order fixing such seniority is liable to be set aside by the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Whether the Union’s challenge is maintainable when the only apparent motive is to avoid payment of additional remuneration.
Whether procedural defects such as delay or non‑joinder of parties invalidate the Tribunal’s order.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Service (Temporary) Rules, 1965
Military Land and Cantonment Service (Class I & II) Rules, 1951s. 11, s. 4(v)(c), s. 5(b)

Subjects

seniority determinationmilitary land and cantonment serviceClass II cadreRule 4(v)(c)Central Administrative Tribunalspecial leave petitionsubstantial justicead‑hoc appointmentpromotion

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
r'
M.P. SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

FEBRUARY 27, 1990

B [M.H. KANIA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] ;/
'
Military Land and Cantonment Service (Class I & II) Rules

-
1951-Rule 4(v)(c) and 5(b)-Indian Defence Estates Service-Assis-
tan! Military Estate Officers (Technica/)-Seniority determination of.

The dispute in these appeals by special leave relates to the inter se
c . seniority of officers in Class 'A' of the Indian Defence Estate Service.
Class 'A' of the said service comprised of officers promoted from two
different channels viz., Assistant Military Estate Officers and Assistant
)--,
Military Estate Officers (Technical) of the Military and Cantonment
Service Class 'B'. The manner of selection and appointment of these
D categories of officers is different. Whereas Assistant Military Estate
Officers were promoted from among the service Class III staff of the
military Lands and Cantonments Service; Assistant Military Estate
Officers (Technical) were appointed on the recommendations of the >--~
Union Public Service Commission, from amongst the officers who were
released from Engineering Service of Army after 1962. There was how·
E ever no difference in the performance of their duties. AMEOS were
~
included in Class II of Military Land and Cantonment Service (Class I
and II) Rules 1951 for the first time in 1964, by virtue of a notification ;
issued in 1964 and was incorporated in 1951 Rules when it was amended
in 1968. But no such notification was issued in the case of AMEOS

f
(Technical) until 1976; nor any other rule was applied to them. In other
words selections and appointments of AMEOS (Technical) was made
without any statutory basis. To avoid the anomoly, AMEOT were
r
included in Class II of 1951 Rules in 1976. Thus from this date officers
appointed as AMEOT either under the 1968 Rules or prior to it became
members of Military Land and Cantonment Service to whom 1951 Roles
applied. But no provision was made for the period of service rendered
G from 1964 to 1976, which affected their seniority and promotion.
According to the appellant-Union, the service rendered dnring this
period has to be deemed as ad hoc. Respondents being aggrieved filed a
r-
Petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal
allowed the Petition and held that the seniority of AMEOT was to be
determined under Role 11 of 1951 Rules on length of regular service in
H the cadre and accordingly directed the appellant-Union to re-determine

604
U.0.1. v. M.P. SINGH 605

the seniority of officers. Hence this appeal by the Union oflndia.
A
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: Seniority of an employee 'and its determination depends
on service in the cadre to which he belonged or to which he was
appointed. [6UB] B

Effect of Tribunal's order in the instant case .is that it cured the

-
injustice perpetrated due to absence of exercise of power hy the Govern-
ment under Rule 4(v)(c) of 1951 Rules as it stood amended since,1964.
Substantial justice being one of the guidelines for exercise of power by
this Conrt the order is not liable to interference. '[611Ff
c
;
Justice is alert to differences and sensitive to discrimination. It
~\ cannot be measured in terms of money. A Government of a welfare
state has gruelling task of being fair and just and so justice oriented in
its approach and outlook. [61lliT
D
Mere rectification of mistakes or omissions by Courts and Tri-
bunals should not prompt parties to approach this Court by Special
•____,,I Leave merely for taking a chance or to protect some vested intere•t
except for sake of justice or for laying down law for benefit of Court and
its guidance. AMEOS were granted seniority_ from the date of appoint-
ment in MLC service whereas similar benefit was denied to AMEOT as E
; they were working as ad-hoc. To remove this irritant Tribunal directed
that they shall be deemed to be holding regular posts. Officers working
since 1964 without any flaw could not he treated as ad hoc. In any case
once review DPCs were held it was incumbent on it to include these
persons and if necessary to evaluate their services or get it evaluated hy
appropriate authority to regularise them and then detel'illine seniority. F
But ignoring them in 1987 even they had become member of MLC
service was arbitrary and unjustified .. [612A-D] ,

Col. D.D. Joshi and Ors: v. Union of India and Ors .. [1983] 2
SCC 235; Ranga Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1987]
Suppl. sec 15. G
' ---1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
4397-98 of 1989 etc.

From ,the J_ud_gment and Order dated 30.11.1988 of the Central -1
Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi in 0.A. Nos. 838 of 87 and 1502 H
of 1987.
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A K. Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, A. Subba Rao, C.V.S. f
Rao and M.S. Ganesh for the appellants. •
•
Respondent No. 1 in-person.

D.K. Garg, R.P. Oberoi and D.B. Vohra for the respondents.
B
The judgment of the Court was delivered by

-
R.M. SAHAI, J. Seniority in services is usually irksome. But the
nature of dispute amongst officers in Class 'A' of Indian Defence
Estates Service, who were promoted from Class 'B' of Military and
Cantonment service where they were working as Assistant Military
C Estates Officers (AMEO) and Assistant Military Estates Officers
(Technical) (AMEOT), is slightly, unusually. That is why apart from
correctness or otherwise of directions issued by the Tribunal (Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi) for re-determining seniority one
of the issues debated was if this Court in exercise of its powers under
D Article 136 of the Constitution of India ~hould interfere with orders of
Tribunal if substantial justice has been done between parties. To this
may be added, yet, another, namely, if the Union oflndia should have
approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition not for sake of
justice or injustice, legality or illegality of any provision but because it
may have to pay few thousands, may be few lakhs more.
E
But, first, manner of appointment of two-group of officers and .·>
rules by which they were governed from time to time maybe noticed as
even though initially posts of both AMEO and AMEOT were sanc-
tioned and created by the President in 1962 and they were governed
for some time by different set of rules but were brought in common
F stream in 1976 and were promoted in Class 'A' before fresh rules were
enforced in 1983 and 1985, yet entire thrust of attack to justify diffe-
rential treatment to AMEOT was founded on difference in method of
their selection. AMEOS were included in Class II of Military Land and
Cantonment Service (Class I and II) Rules, 1951 for the first time in
1964. Relevant amendment by notification issued in 1964 was incor-
G porated in 1951 Rules when it was amended in 1968. Amended Rule
4( v)( c) read as under:

"Class II of the Service shall consist of Executive Officers
Class II, Assistant Military Estates Officers and such other
posts, as may, by order of the Government be declared to
H be included in Class II cadre of the Service."
U.0.1. v. M.P. SINGH [SAHA!, J.] 607

Manner of appointment to this class was provided by Rule S(b) which
A
is extracted below:

"(b) Appointment to Class II Cadre of the Service shall be
made in the following manner, namely:-

'--
/
(1) upto 20% of vacancies in Class II, by promotion from
among the serving Class III staff of the Military Lands and
Cantonments Service having service and educational quali-
fications specified in sub-rules (c) and (e);
B

(2) upto 20% of vacancies by direct recruitment made by a
selection from among serving employees of Cantonment
Boards having service and educational qualifications speci-
c
fied in sub-rules (d) and (e);
~\
(3) the remaining vacancies from among the candidates
who qualify at the Examination and are recommended by
the Commission but who fail to secure Class I appointment D
in any of the Central Services.

'Provided that (i) for a period of five years commenc-
ing from the 29th January, 1966, 30 per cent of the perma-
nent vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment in any year
shall be reserved for being filled in by the Emergency Com- E
missioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union who
were commissioned on or after the 1st November, 1962,
and who were released at any time thereafter."

In 1981 service known as Military Lands and Cantonment Service
(Group A) was constituted. 75% of the substantive vacancies, in this F
Group 'A', junior scale, were to be filed by direct competition and
25 % by promotion from a panel prepared on the basis of selection on
merit in ratio 1: 1 from amongst Cantonment Executive Officer Group
'B' and Assistant Military Estates Officer Service (Group B) who had
not rendered less than 3 years regular service.
G
AMEO (Technical) on the other hand were officers who were
released from Engineering Service of Army after 1962. Since there was
increase in work load and they were to be absorbed as well they were
appointed on .recommendation of UPSC (Union Public Service Com-
mission) in 1964 and 1965 against posts which were created from time
to time by the Military Land and Cantonments Department as is clear H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] l S.C.R.

A from various orders issued in 1963, 1967 and 1970 which have been
extracted in the order of Tribunal to demonstrate that the Director,
Military Lands and Cantonment, Ministry of Defence, issued letters
conveying the sanction of the President to the creation of various posts
in the Military Lands & Cantonment Service which included Assistant
Military Estates Officers (Technical). Although the appointment letter
$ issued to each officer mentioned that the post was temporary yet each
was appointed on probation of two years. The word "Technical"
appears to have been added because they were engineers. Otherwise
there was neither difference in pay nor in work as the AMEOT were
appointed to work as AMEO as well. AMEOT were thus qualified
persons holding rank in Army. To say that they were lesser in merit
C than AMEO, only, because they had not appeared in competitive
examination was being uncharitable to them.

To misfortune of AMEOT they were neither included in the
;.--..
Class II cadre of 1951 Rules nor any other rule was applied to them.
Presumably because of method of recruitment. All the same it was
!:I> very unsatisfactory that posts of AMEOT were being created and
selections made in pursuance of advertisement issued by the UPSC yet
they were not being provided any statutory basis. Realising this rules
were framed under Article 309 in 1968, but these rules again did not
provide for promotions, seniority etc. However, 1.t~ anoinoly ·was
finally removed, when officers appointed prior to 1967 or under 1968
E Rules as AMEOTwere included in Class II of 1951 Rules by amending
Rule 3 in 1976 which read as under:

"3. The Service shall be constituted by officers appointed-

(i) in accordance with these rules;
F
(ii) in accordance with the Military Lands and Canton·
ments Service (Assistant Military Estates Officers-
Technical) Recruitment Rules, 1968; and

(iii) in consultation with the Commission, as Assistant
G Military Estates Officer (Technical), prior to the 1st
January, 1967."

Thus from this date officers appointed as AMEOT either under
,
the 1968 Rules or prior to it became members of Military Lands and
Cantonment Service (MLC) to whom 1951 Rules applied. On that
H there is no dispute. But what about 1964 to 1976? Should they be
U.0.1. v. M.P. SINGH [SAHA!, J.l 609

deemed to have served under no rules as claimed by AMEOS and
A
strangely even by Union, or they were governed by Central Civil
Services (Temporary)Rules 1965 (CCS Rules). And if so what was its
effect on their promotion and seniority. For this one of the appoint-
ment letter issued to AMEOT containing terms and conditions is
extracted below:-
B
MEMORANDUM

Subject: Recruitment to the post of Assistant Military
Estate Officer (Technical) Military/Lands &
Cantonments Service.

On the recommendation of the Union .Public Service
c
Commission, the President is pleaded to offer Shri
Mahandra Pal Singh, a temporary post of Assistant Milit-
ary (Estate Officer Technical) in the Military Lands &
Cantonment Service Under Ministry of Defence.
D
xxx xxx xxx
The terms and conditions of appointment are as follows:

(i) The post is temporary. In the event of its becoming
permanent his claim for permanent absorption will 'bl' .con-
sidered in accordance with the rules in force. E

(ii) He will be on probation for a period of two years from
the date of appointment which may be extended at the
discretion of the competent authority. Failure to complete
the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent
authority will render him liable to discharge from service or F
reversion to his parent department in case he is holding a
permanent posts.

xxx xxx xxx

(iv) The appointment may be terminated at any time on G
one month's notice given by either side, viz., the appointee
or the appointing authority, without assigning any reasons,
or by reverting the individual to his parent department, in
case he is holding a lien. Jhe appointing authority, how-
ever, reserves the right of terminating the services of the
.
appointee forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] I S.C.R.

period of notice by making payment to him of a sum equi-
A valent to the pay and allowance for the period of notice or
the unexpired portion thereof.

(v) He will be subject to conditions of service as applicable
to temporary civilian Government servants paid from
B Defence Services Estimates in accordance with the orders
issued by Govt. of India from time to time. He will be
subject to Field Service Liability Rule, 1957."

What stands out clearly from it is that they were appointed in Military
Lands and Cantonment Service (MLC) under Ministry of Defence.
That is clear from the order creating the posts from time to time.
cl Letter dated 27th April, 1963 is extracted below:

"To
The Director,
D Military Lands & Cantts.
New Delhi.

Subject: Establishment of the New Eastern Command )...__,
Sanction of Staff.

Sir,

Consequent on the establishment of the New Eastern -1
Command and re-organisation of the existing Eastern
Command into Central Command, I am directed to convey
the sanction of the President to the creation of the follow- J
F ing posts in the Military Lands and Cantts. Services:-

1. Dy. Director, Military Lands & Cann ts. I

2. Asstt. Director, ML & C. 1

3. Military Estates Officer (Bihar & Orissa) I

4. Asstt. Mily. Estates Officer, (Technical Class II) 2"

Therefore it is too late to claim that they were not appointed to
Military Land and Cantonment Service under Ministry of Defence.
It! Was their status effected or nature of employment altered because
U.0.1. v. M.P. SINGH [SAHA!, J.) 611

Central Civil Service (Temporary service) 1965 Rules applied to them.
A
These rules applied to 'service under the Government of India in the
·Ministry of Defence .... paid out of the Defence Service Estimates'.
Purpose of the rule was not to create a cadre or grade of temporary
employees but to provide statutory basis to employees of different
departments mentfoned in it and accord them a quasi-permanent
status if they fulfilled the requirements mentioned in Rule 3. Seniority, B
promotion etc. were to be governed by the rules under which the
temporary employee was appointed. Therefore, seniority of an

- employee and its determination depended on service in the cadre to
which he belonged or to which he was appointed.

That the AMEOT were appointed to MLC service cannot be
disputed. Nor it can be disputed that they were appointed to posts
which were created by the President and its sanction was conveyed by
c
the Director of MLC. The only shortcoming was that there was no
declaration that these posts were included in Class II Cadre. That also
stood removed in 1976. Since it included every AMEOT whether
appointed under 1968 Rules or even prior to it all those AMEOT who D
were appointed in 1964 or 1965 also become member of service to
whom 1951 Rules applied. Automatic consequence of it was that
seniority of AMEOT was to be determined under Rule 11 of 1951
Rules on length of regular service in the cadre. That is what the tri-
bunal held. And rightly. Whether service rendered by the respondents
between 1964 to 1976 was regular or it could be deemed to be regular E
as held by the Tribunal is different.

Assuming, the Tribunal committed error in applying 1951 Rules
to service of AMEOT prior to 1976, does it call for any interference? Is
the order not just and fair? Effect of Tribunal's order is that it cured
the injustice perpetrated due to absence of exercise of power by the F
Government under Rule 4(v)(c) of 1951 Rules as it stood amended
since 1964. Substantial justice being one of the guidelines for exercise
of power by this Court the order is not liable to interference.

What is baffling is filing of the SLP by Union Government. Not
because of any injustice to AMEO as that has been taken care of by G
Tribunal by protecting all those who are working but because if it
works out seniority of AMEOT from back date it may have to pay
substantial amount and creation of superanuary posts may further
entail cost. Justice is alert to differences and sensitive to discrimina-
tion. It cannot be measured in terms of money. A government of a
welfare state has gruelling task of being fair and just and so justice H
Ii 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 1 S.C.R.

A oriented.in its approach and outlook. Mere rectification of its mistakes
or ommissions by Courts and Tribunals should not prompt parties or it
to approach this Court by Special Leave merely for taking a chance or
to protect some vested interest except for sake of justice or for laying
down law for benefit of Court and its guidance. Neither was in this
case.
B
Injustice to respondents is apparent as admittedly these officers
were promoted in Class 'A' in 1978 and are working since then uninter-

-
ruptedly yet when review DPC were held in pursuance of the judgment
given by Allahabad High Court and seniority list was published in
1987, they were ignored as they were working as ad-hoc resulting in
C pushing up AMEOS who were junior to them. AMEOs were granted
seniority from the date of appointment in MLC service whereas similar
benefit was denied to AMEOT as they were working as ad-hoc. To
remove this irritant Tribunal directed that they shall be deemed to be
holding regular posts. Officers working since 1964 w'ithout any flaw
could not be treated as ad-hoc. In any case once review DPCs were
D held it was incumbent on it to include these persons and if necessary to
evaluate their services or get it evaluated by appropriate authority
regularise them and then determine seniority. But in ignoring them in
1987 even when they had become member of MLC service was ar-
bitrary and unjustified ..
E Two other objections one about delay and other about non-
joinder raised, again, by Union Govt. may be examined. As regards
former suffice it to say that the occasion to approach Tribunal arose
when seniority of respondents was disturbed and panels recommended
in 1972 and 1979 were redrawn in 1987 and seniority were refixed in
Group 'B' with effect from March 1968. Therefore objection of claim
F being slate or belated cannot be accepted. Nor there is any substance
in defect due to non-joinder of parties. Objection stands answered by
the ratio in Col. D.D. Joshi & Others v. Union of India & Others,
[ 1983] 2 SCC 235; where it was held that it was not necessary to
implead all parties if challenge was to validity of rule. As regards
Ranga Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh., [1987] SUJ'Pl. SCC
G 15 relied on behalf of the appellant in support of the submission that
the order passed by the Tribunal was vitiated in the absence of
interested parties cannot be accepted as some of those officers who
were directly affected or were immediately likely to be effected got
themselves impleaded before the Tribunal. Therefore, the defect, if
H any, stood removed. Moreover the Tribunal protected interests of all
U.0.1. v. M.P. SINGH [SAHA!, J.[ 613

these persons who were working at present by directing that they shall A
not be disturbed. Non-impleadment of these who may be effected in
future could not render ,the petition vulnerable.

In the result both th_e appeals fail and are dismissed. The respon-
dents shall be entitled to costs from Union of India.
B
Y. Lal Appeals dismissed.

-
/