NATIONAL EX-SERVICEMEN CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE ETC. ETC. versus CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 09-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. 
r 
NATIONAL EX-SERVICEMEN CO-ORDINATION 
COMMITTEE ETC. ETC. 
v. 
CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS AND ORS. 
SEPTEMI?ER 9, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
A 
B 
Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Services and Posts) Rules, 
C 
1979: 
Ex-servicemen-Re-employment-Dearness Re Ii ef-Pension-Office 
Memorandum regarding-0.M. denying to ex-servicemen re-employed to 
posts under Central Government without a similar provision for those re-
employed in public sector--Held not discriminatory. 
D 
Service Law-Policy decision-Scope of judicial review-Service condi-
tions-Alteration by executive instmctions-Pennissibility of. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Seventh Schedul~ist:---£ntry 2. 
''Amted Forces''-Scope of expression. 
E 
The question involved in this petition relates to payment of dearness 
relief to ex-servicemen on re-employment. The Office Memorandum dated 
1.8.1975 had been made applicable by the Ministry of Defence vide their 
netter dated 28.10.1975 to the Armed Forces pensioners also. For the F 
petitioners it was contended that : (i) the denial of the Dearness Relief to 
the service personnel re-employed in posts under Central or State Govern· 
ment, without there being a similar provision for those re-employed in 
public .sector undertakings or nationalised banks was discriminatory; (ii) 
the Ministry of Defence's letter dated 28.10.1975 was inapplicable in view 
of Ministry of Defence's O.M. d11ted 8.2.1983; (iii) the service conditions G 
of armed personnel being not attractive they should be treated differently 
from the re-employed civilians; (iv) their service conditions cannot be 
altered by mere executive instructions; (v) realisation of Dearness Relief 
on pension already paid to re-employed service personnel would cause 
hardship to them; and (vi) the letter dated 28.10.1975 was not applicable H 
675 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
to the personnel of naval, military and air force. 
Dismissing the Review Petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. Government employees form a distinct class and their 
service conditions can be different from those who are employed in public 
B sector undertakings or lllationalised. banks. [677-F-G] 
2. The subject matter of 1983 O.M. is entirely different and cannot 
effect the rationale in denial of Dearness Relief on pension on re-employ-
ment " the same being that the Dearness Relief paid after re-employment 
takes care of the erosion in the value of the money because of rise in prices, 
C which lies at the back of grant of Dearness Relief, Payment of Dearness 
Relief in such a situation on pension would amount to giving Dearness 
Relief twice, wliich is n11t visualized. [678-B-C] 
3: The question wlhether ex-servicemen should be treated differently 
D from re-employed civilians being a matter of policy has to be appropriately 
decided by the Government. The Government would do so keeping in view 
the present scenario and national perspective. [678-D] 
4. It is settled law that service condition can be altered by issuing 
executi~e instructions where the field is not occupied by statutory· rules. 
E The non-amendment of the Rules has, therefore, no sequitur. [679·C) 
5. The appropriate authorities shoutd sympathetically consider that 
the realisation of the Dearness Relief on pension already paid may not be 
insisted. (678-F] 
p 
6. The word "other" in the second part of Entry 2 of List I of the 
G 
Seven~ Schedule to the Constitution clearly shows that naval, military 
and air forces have been accepted as armed forces. [678-H, 679-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 1002 
of 1993 Etc. 
IN 
. ' 
Civil Appeal No. 1809 of 1993 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.93 of the Delhi High Court 
H in C.W.P. No. 1966 of 1992. 
NATIONALEX-SERVICEMENCO-ORD.COM. '· CON1ROLLERGEN.OFDEPENCE (HANSARIA,J.] 
677 
WITH 
A 
Civil Appeal Nos. 11984, 11981, 11983 and 11982 of 1996. 
H.N. Salve, P.P. Malhotra, N.N. Goswami, K.V. Mohan, S.M. Hooda, 
N.S. Bisht. G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Ms. Anil Katiyar, T.V. Ratnam, 
Ms. Indra Swahney and P.P. Tripathi for the Appearing parties. 
The Judgments of the Court was delivered by 
B 
HANSARIA, J. These review petitions were entertained on a 
grievance being made that while deciding the appeals in question reliance C 
had been placed on some documents which had been annexed along with 
the written submission filed after the judgment was reserved, as permitted 
by t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.