S.K. MUKHERJEE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 03-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.K. MUKHERJEE 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
AUGUST 3, 1994 
[A.M. AHMADI AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Civil Defence Act 1968/Civil Defence Regulations, 1968 Sections 4, 5, 
6, 7, 8, 9, 20/Regulations 8, 13, !~Service Conditions of Civil Defence Corps C 
employees-Framing of Regulations by Central Govemment alone-But the 
Act could be hrought into force by different states on different dates-Service 
conditions can be stipulated by State Govemment. 
The petitioner was appointment as Staff Officer-cum· Instructor in 
the Directorate of Civil Defence, West Bengal on a temporary basis. He D-
claimed to be a member of the Civil Defence Corps and that he was 
governed by the Civil Defence Act, 1968. The Civil Defence Organisation 
was set up in India in 1965 under the Defence of India Act and was later 
converted into Civil Defence Corps under the Civil Defence Act, 1968. 
Accordingly, the Civil Defence Organisation of West Bengal was converted E 
into a Civil Defence Corps by Notification dated 10.7.1968 and thereupon 
the petitioner became a member of the said corps. According to the 
petitioner, the Central Government in compliance with High Court's or· 
ders took over complete control of the Mobile Civil Emergency Force 
(MCEF) with effect from 1.4.92 by order dated 26.2.92 whereby existing 
employees of MCEF, Calcutta became holders of Civil posts under the F 
Government of India and derived all the benefits admissible to such 
employees. Since the petitioner and others did not receive the same benefit 
as they were not covered under the said order, the petitioner preferred the 
present Writ Petition. 
It was contended that since the Civil Defence Act, 1968 is a Central G 
Act and extends to the whole of India including West Bengal, the Central 
Government should have regulated the recruitment and conditions of 
service of persons appointed in the Civil Defence Organisation all over the 
country to have uniform set of service conditions, the absence of which is 
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. 
H 
395 
A 
B 
~96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the petitioner 
has been a full time employee and is governed by the State service condi· 
tions, and he cannot claim to be governed by rules and regulations made 
by the Central Government. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. Rules and regulations can be framed by the Central 
Government alone under the provisions of the Civil Defence Act, 1968. 
Such regulations under Section 9(2)(b) can interalia relate to conditions 
of service. But there is no dispute that the Act could be brought into force 
C by different States from different dates, so however, that such date shall 
not be earlier to the date on which the Defence of India Act, 1962 would 
expire. Admittedly the Act was brought into effect from 10th July, 1968. 
However, the Order No. 4729-HCD dated 24th July, 1965 appointing the 
petitioner to the temporary post of Staff Officer-cum-Instructor in the 
Directorate of Civil Defence, West Bengal, being earlier to 10th July, 1968, 
D there can be no doubt that the petitioner's appointment was de hors the 
Act. [402:B, CJ 
E 
F 
2: Regulation 8 of the Civil Defence Regulations, 1968, bear on the 
service conditions of.the members of the Civil Defence Corps. On a plain 
reading of this regulation it becomes immediately obvious that members 
of the Corps are expected to render service in a voluntary and honoura.,-
capacity but if the State Government so desires it may authorise payment 
of dutY allowance in consultation with the Central Government t~ a 
member of the Corps called on duty. Clause (2) which begins with a non· 
obstante clause empowers the Central Government to declare any appoint· 
ment or class of appointments as paid appointments whereupon the 
incumbent shall be entitled to the conditions of service as regards pay, 
leave, etc., as the State Government may by order, prescribe. Here again 
the power of prescribing the service conditions as to pay, leave, etc. rests 
with the State Government and not the Central Government. Therefore, 
G the petitioner's claim that the Service conditions as to pay, leave, etc., 
cannot be stipulated by the State Government is clearly misconceived. That 
function has clearly been entrusted to the State Government on a plain 
.reading of Regulation 8. (402-G·H, 403-A to CJ 
3_. The Central Government's ac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.