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

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 25-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
-~ 
v. 
S.S. RANADE 
APRIL 25, 1995 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
.J 
_,..J 
Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of 
Officers) Rules, 1978. 
c 
Rule 9-Superannuation-Retiremeht age of officers-Commandant 
(Selection Grade)-Not a higher post than that of Commandant-Hence not 
entitled to higher age of superannuation. 
The appellant in order to alleviate the degree and extent of stagna- D 
·tion among the officers' cadre by its letter dated 23rd February, 1991 gave 
its approval to the creation of 123 posts of Commandants in the Selection 
Grade of Rs. 1800 fixed whieh has been subsequently revised to Rs. 
4100-5300 for Commandant and Rs. 4500-5700 for Commandant (Selection 
Grade). 
E 
The appellant by his communication dated 26th June 1990 set out in 
paragraph 2 the revised cadre strength of officers of the Border Security 
Force. 
The respondent is an officer of the Border Security Force holding 
the post of Commandment (Selection Grade). The appellants. sought to F 
retire the respondent on his attaining the · age of 55 years. This was 
challenged by the respondent before the High Court where he was success-
ful. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the appellants preferred the 
present appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that, at all material G 
times, he was holding the post of Commandant (Selection Grade) which, 
+ 
is a rank higher than that of a Commandant vide Rule 9 of the Border 
Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of officers) 
Rules, 1978; that Rule 6 clearly provides that a Commandant (Selection 
Grade) alone is eligible for promotion to the rank of Additional Deputy H 
773 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 3 S.C.R. 
A Inspector General; that Rule 7 provides for the constitution of a 
Departmental promotion committre; that both these provisions indicate 
that a Commandant (Selection Grade) is a higher post in the hierarchy or 
posts than a Commandant; and that Rule 3 provides that all Comman· 
dants (Selection Grade) are placed above Commandants which indicates 
B 
c 
that the Commandants) (Selection Grade) hold a higher post than Com. 
mandants. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that a Commandant 
(Selection Grade) holds the same post as a Commandant. Hence the 
retirement age of the respondent is 55 years; 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The post or Commandant (Selection Grade) was intro· 
duced additional duties have been prescribed anywhere for a Commandant 
(Selection Grade) who performs the same duties as Commandants. Both 
D the posts are put together at Serial No. 6 in paragraph 2 ofthe.,ommunica-
tion dated 26th June. 1,990. [779-C, 778-D) 
1.2. For the purpose of Rule 9 of the Border Security Force (Seniority 
promotion and Superannuation of officers) Rules, the Respondent dqes 
E not hold a post higher in rank than that of a Commandant in order to get 
the benefit of a higher age of supperanuation. To attract rule 9, the post 
inust be ·a post higher than that or a Commandant, with higher respon· 
sibilities and higher pay scale and not the same post with a higher pay 
scale. [779-G-H, 780-A) 
F 
2.1. Undoubtedly, a Commandant (Selection Grade) secures a 
Promotion to a higher pay scale. But it is a higher pay scale in the same 
post. The use or the word 'promotion' in Rule 6 and the constitution or a 
Departmental Promotion Committee for selection of Commandant (Selec· 
tion Grade) in Rule 7 do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the 
G promotion which is contemplated there is necessarily a promotion to a 
higher post. [780-H, 781 ·A) 
2.2. In the seniority list, a higher rank may be allotted to an officer 
for various reasons. One cannot, however, say that a person who holds a 
higher rank in the seniority list thereby occupies a higher post. Roles 3, 6 
H and 7 may be read in the context of a selection grade providing promotion 
r 
., 
\ 
~\ 
U.0.1. v. S.S. RANADE [SUJATA V. MANO HAR, J.] 
775 
to a higher pay scale in the same post. (781-C) 
23. Rule 9 provides a hierarchy of posts. Holders of all posts upto 
and including the level of Commandant retire at the age of 55 years. 
Holders of posts above that of Commandant retire at the age of 58 years. 
In order to decide whether a post is either equivalent or is higher or lower 
than another post, one cannot look only at the pay scale of the post. One 
must also look at the dutie

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