LexLT. GENERAL R.K. ANAND versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
LT. GEN. R.K. ANAND v. U.01 . 499 . :1> was the one which governed the retirement or the appellant. In this view A ~ or the matter, the High Court .dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved against the High Court's order, the appellant preferred the present appeal by special leave. On behalf or the appellant it was contended that the Jetter of 9th May, 1985 was issued under the signature or the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Defence and was, therefore, in the nature of executive instruc- tions, even if it did not have statutory flavour, it held the field and the authorities were bound by the terms thereof, and could not have superan- nuated him before he completed 58 years of age; that the letter of 9th September, 1986 cannot supersede the Jetter of 9th May, 1985 as it is only a departmental letter whteh cannot be placed on tbe pedestal of executive instructions contemplated by Article 162 of the Constitution; and that the fact that two new clauses were sought to be introduced in the letter of 9th May, 1985, showed that the instructions contained in the said letter were very much in operation and they wel"e not superseded by the Jetter of 9th September, 1986. On behalf or the Respondents, it was contended that after the two streams concept was introduced by tile letter of 9th September, 1986, superannuation was regulated as per the terms thereof and accordingly the appellant, an infantry man and falling under 'Slaff only' stream had to retire at the age of .57. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, H,ELD: 1. The instr.uctions contained in the letter dated 9th Septem- ber, 1986 do not run counter to Rule 16A of Army Rules, 1954 which prescribes the age of superannuation for Lt. Generals between 56 and 58 years. The letter of 9th May, 1985 was general in nature and applied to all Lt. Generals regardless of the stream to which they belonged. Of course at that point of time there was no concept of two streams but there was nothing m Rule 16A or the said letter which debarred the a.uthorities from introducing the same so long as it was consistent with Rule 16A. The appellant superannuated with effect from 31st December, 1990, i.e. after the terms of the letter of 9th September, 1986 came into force. The appellant cannot, therefore, claim the benefit of the instructions contained in the letter of 9th May, 198.5. [504 .D-G] 2. Both the letters of 9th May, 1985 and 9th September, 1986 are in the nature of executive instructions because Rule 16A of the Army Rules, 1954 has not been amended even though the letter of 9th _May, 1985 B c D E F G H 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R. A envisaged a change therein. That letter dated 9th September, 1986 pre- scribes the age of superannuation of officers belonging to the 'Staff only' stream as one year less than the officers "of equivalent rank in 'Command and Staff' stream. The Lt. General in the Command and Staff stream would superannuate at the age of 58 years and, therefore, a Lt. General in the 'Staff only' stream would superannuate one year earlier, that is, at the B age of 57 years. It is, therefore, clear that the subsequent letter of 9th September, 1986 modifies the superannuation age for officers in the 'Staff only' stream. That being the position the appellant who belonged to infantry and fell under 'Staff only' stream was rightly superannuated on his attaining the age of 57 years. (504 F-G; 505 A-B] C 3. In May, 1987 an Addenda was sought to be introduced in the instructions contained in the letter of_9th May, 1985 by adding certain clauses. By clause 3 the age of retirement of the Gen·eral Cadre Officers in the rank of Major General and Lt. General in the 'Command and Stafr stream was proposed to be 56 and 58 years respectively, whereas the age of superannuation for officers of the same rank in the 'Staff only' stream D was proposed to be 55 and 57 years. By clause 4 the age of superannuation of Lt. General of non-General Cadre promoted in the 'Staff only' stream was proposed to be prescribed as one year earlier than the Lt. General promoted in his own corps, that is, at the age of 57 years. It was this Addenda which was placed in abeyance and not the instructions contained in the letter of 9th September, 1986. What was proposed by the Addenda E was to bring the letter of 9th May, 1985 in line with the instructions contained in the letter of 9th September, 1986 since the earlier letter de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.