EX-HAV. SATBIR SINGH versus THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF, NEW DELHI & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 09-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 1001 
EX-HAV. SATBIR SINGH 
v. 
THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF, NEW DELHI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-49 Df 2012) 
NOVEMBER 9, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) 
SERVICE LAW· 
A 
B 
Terminal benefits - Army - Havildar discharged/ c 
terminated from service prior to date of his superannuation 
on the ground that he had earned 4 "Red Ink Entries" - High 
Court directing reinstatement of incumbent, with no benefit of 
salary for interviewing period - Held: Admittedly, the 
incumbent having not worked during the intervening period, 
High Court was justified in disallowing the salary for that period 
- However, having found the discharge/termination legally 
unsustainable, High Court ought to have issued direction for 
counting the intervening period for the purpose of terminal 
benefits - Ordered accordingly. 
The appellant, who was enrolled in the Army on 
31.8.1982, and promoted to the rank of Havildar on 
14.2.1990, was to superannuate on 31.8.2006. However, 
D 
E 
he was served with a show-cause notice dated 16.3.1995, 
stating that he had earned 4 'Red Ink Entries' in the 
F 
service of 12% years. Ultimately, he was discharged from 
service on 1.4.1995. The appellant challenged the order 
in a writ petition before the High Court, which, by order 
dated 2.5.2008, set aside the qrder of discharge and 
directed his reinstatement with no benefit of salary and 
G 
other allowances for the "intervening period". 
In the instant appeals, the Court confined the notice 
to the respondents to show cause as to why "the 
1001 
H 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A intervening period should not be counted for the purpose 
of terminal benefits." 
Allowing the appeals in part, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that the High Court in 
B categorical terms held the discharge/termination of the 
appellant from service on the basis of the show cause 
notice as unsustainable, and set it aside. Therefore, the 
appellant ought to have been provided relief at least to 
the extent of counting the intervening period for the 
C purpose of terminal benefits. The direction to deprive the 
appellant the benefit of intervening period for the purpose 
of terminal benefits is punitive imposing break in service 
as the period involved amounts to dies non and the said 
direction was based without considering any related 
D issue and decided on merits by the High Court. 
Therefore, the same is not sustainable and is liable to be 
set aside. It is true that during the intervening period, the 
appellant did not work, in that event, the High Court was 
justified in disallowing the salary for the said period. [para 
E 9, 10] (1005-B-E, G-H, 1006-A] 
1.2 Therefore, while upholding the order of the 
Division Bench setting aside the termination order, this 
Court holds that for the purpose of terminal benefits, the 
F "intervening period" for which the appellant remained out 
of job shall be counted. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are 
directed to pass appropriate orders fixing the terminal 
benefits. [para 11] (1006-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
G 7939-7940 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2008 and 
20.02.2009 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ 
Petition (C) No. 3874 of 1995 and in Review Petition No. 244 
H of 2008 respectively. 
EX-HAY. SATBIR SINGH v. CHIEF OF THE ARMY 1003 
STAFF, NEW DELHI 
C.M. Khanna, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. 
A 
A.S. Chandhiok, ASG, R. Balasubramanium, Vikas 
Bansal, B.V. Bairam Das, Yamini Khurana, Anil Katiyar for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Delay GOndoned. 
2. Leave granted. 
3. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and 
C 
order dated 02.05.2008 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3874 of 1995 
and order dated 20.02.2009 in Review Petition No. 244 of 2008 
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi insofar 
as rejection of salary and terminal benefits for the "intervening 
period" during which the appellant remained out of service. 
D 
4. Brief facts: 
(a) The appellant herein was enrolled in the Army on 
31.08.1982. In September, 1985, he was promoted to the rank 
of Lance Naik and in April, 1986, he was promoted to the rank 
E 
of Naik. On 14.02.1990, he got further promotion to the rank of 
Havildar and with the said promotion, his tenure of service was 
extended to 24 years and his date of superannuation also got 
extended to 31.08.2006. 
(b) T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.