UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus S.S. GILL

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 406 · Decided: 19-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
+ 
v. 
S.S. GILL 
JULY 19, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKEWSHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
r-
;--
f 
t 
Service Law: 
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955-Rule 8(b)-Seniority-
c Determination of-Short Service Commissioned Officers in Army appointed 
in CRPF-Reckoning of past Army Service towards seniority-Entitlement 
of-Held: No provision in Rule 8(b) enables Army Officer or re-employed 
Army Officer to count his Army service for seniority in CRPF-Thus, SSCO!. 
not entitled to benefit of past service in Army for reckoning their seniority. 
D 
The Short Service Commissioned Officers were appointed as Emergency 
Commissioned Officers on short sen·ice in Army. Thereafter, they were offered 
+ 
appointment in Central Reserve Police Force and were appointed as direct 
officers under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. In terms of the 
? 
appointment they were not entitled to reckon their Army Service towards 
E setiority in the CRPF except pay fixation. The SSCO's contended that their 
I 
se iority was to be determined after considering the unbroken service in the 
Armed Forces. Appellant-Union of India contended that the SSCOs were not 
eligible to get their past service in Army counted in CRPF for determining 
seniority. Letters Patent Appeal were filed before Delhi High Court and Jammu 
F 
and Kashmir High Court. Delhi High Court held that SSCOs were not 
entitled to benefit of past sen'ice in Army, however Jam mu and Kashmir High 
Court held it otherwise. Hence, the present matters. 
Allowing CA 5353/2000 and dismissing the other appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: Rule 8(b)(i) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 
only governs the seniority as between Army Officers inter se, Army Officers 
and re-employed Army Officers inter se, Indian Police Service Officers inter 
se, and non-Army and Army Officers of equivalent rank inter se. The 
r-
\ 
expression 'rank' in this rule means the rank in CRPF. There is nothing in . 
Rule 8(b) to indicate that the earlier Army service of an Army Officer or a 
H 
406 
U.0.1. v. S.S.GlLL[PASAYAT. J.] 
407 
re-employed Army Officer is to be counted for the purpose ofseniority in A 
CRPF. Since Rule 8(b)(i) is silent in this regard executive instructions can 
be issued by the Central Government for the purpose of giving benefit of Army 
service to Army Officers or re-employed Army Officers. Rule 8 when it says 
that "an Army Officer shall maintain his seniority as between Army Officers 
within a particular rank and an Army Officer re-employed in the Central B 
Reserve Police Force shall maintain his Army Service between Army Officers 
within a particular rank" only means that amongst Army Officers inter se 
and a re-employed Army Officer and an Army Officer inter se their seniority 
to a particular rank in the CRPF would be fixed on the basis of their seniority 
in the Army. (Para 7) (409-B-H( 
R.C. Sahi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 482 and 
Ravi Paul and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1995( 3 SCC 300, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5353 of2000. 
c 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.4.2000 of the High Court of Jammu D 
& Kashmir at Jammu in LP.A. No. (SW) 121/99. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 3133/2007, 5354/2000 & W.P. (C) No. 596/2000. 
Paramjit Singh Patwalia and J.L. Gupta, Sr. Adv., Aman Preet Singh Rahi, E 
Indra Sawhney, Sushma Suri, Kiran Suri, S.J. Amith, Kirti Renu Mishra, Aditya 
Kumar Choudhary and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Appellants. 
E.C. Agrawala for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 1961 of.2003 
2. In the appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 1961 of2003 challenge is to the 
judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent G 
Appeal No.702 of2000. Civil Appeal No. 5353 of2000 is directed against the 
judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Letters Patent Appeal filed 
by the Union of India. Civil Appeal No. 5354 of2000 is filed by one R.K. Dua 
who was not a party in the Letters Patent Appeal before the Jammu and 
Kashmir High Court. Writ Petition No. 596 of 2000 also involves the simi\ar 
dispute. 
H 
408 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
3. The controversy relates to the interpretation of Rule 8(b) of Central 
Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules'). According to the 
Union of India, the Short Service Commissioned Officers (in short 'SSCOs') 
ar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.