UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M.P. SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 604 · Decided: 27-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
r 
v. 
' 
M.P. SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 27, 1990 
B 
[M.H. KANIA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
;/ 
' 
Military Land and Cantonment Service (Class I & II) Rules 
1951-Rule 4(v)(c) and 5(b)-Indian Defence Estates Service-Assis-
tan! Military Estate Officers (Technica/)-Seniority determination of. -
c 
The dispute in these appeals by special leave relates to the inter se 
. seniority of officers in Class 'A' of the Indian Defence Estate Service. 
)--, 
Class 'A' of the said service comprised of officers promoted from two 
different channels viz., Assistant Military Estate Officers and Assistant 
Military Estate Officers (Technical) of the Military and Cantonment 
Service Class 'B'. The manner of selection and appointment of these 
D categories of officers is different. Whereas Assistant Military Estate 
Officers were promoted from among the service Class III staff of the 
military Lands and Cantonments Service; Assistant Military Estate 
Officers (Technical) were appointed on the recommendations of the 
>--~ 
Union Public Service Commission, from amongst the officers who were 
released from Engineering Service of Army after 1962. There was how· 
E ever no difference in the performance of their duties. AMEOS were 
included in Class II of Military Land and Cantonment Service (Class I 
~ 
and II) Rules 1951 for the first time in 1964, by virtue of a notification 
; 
issued in 1964 and was incorporated in 1951 Rules when it was amended 
in 1968. But no such notification was issued in the case of AMEOS 
(Technical) until 1976; nor any other rule was applied to them. In other r 
f 
words selections and appointments of AMEOS (Technical) was made 
without any statutory basis. To avoid the anomoly, AMEOT were 
included in Class II of 1951 Rules in 1976. Thus from this date officers 
appointed as AMEOT either under the 1968 Rules or prior to it became 
members of Military Land and Cantonment Service to whom 1951 Roles 
applied. But no provision was made for the period of service rendered 
G from 1964 to 1976, which affected their seniority and promotion. 
According to the appellant-Union, the service rendered dnring this r-
period has to be deemed as ad hoc. Respondents being aggrieved filed a 
Petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal 
allowed the Petition and held that the seniority of AMEOT was to be 
H 
determined under Role 11 of 1951 Rules on length of regular service in 
the cadre and accordingly directed the appellant-Union to re-determine 
604 
-
; 
~\ 
• 
I 
____,, 
; 
' ---1 
U.0.1. v. M.P. SINGH 
605 
the seniority of officers. Hence this appeal by the Union oflndia. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: Seniority of an employee 'and its determination depends 
on service in the cadre to which he belonged or to which he was 
A 
appointed. [6UB] 
B 
Effect of Tribunal's order in the instant case .is that it cured the 
injustice perpetrated due to absence of exercise of power hy the Govern-
ment under Rule 4(v)(c) of 1951 Rules as it stood amended since,1964. 
Substantial justice being one of the guidelines for exercise of power by 
this Conrt the order is not liable to interference. '[611Ff 
Justice is alert to differences and sensitive to discrimination. It 
cannot be measured in terms of money. A Government of a welfare 
state has gruelling task of being fair and just and so justice oriented in 
its approach and outlook. [61lliT 
Mere rectification of mistakes or omissions by Courts and Tri-
bunals should not prompt parties to approach this Court by Special 
Leave merely for taking a chance or to protect some vested intere•t 
except for sake of justice or for laying down law for benefit of Court and 
c 
D 
its guidance. AMEOS were granted seniority_ from the date of appoint-
ment in MLC service whereas similar benefit was denied to AMEOT as 
E 
they were working as ad-hoc. To remove this irritant Tribunal directed 
that they shall be deemed to be holding regular posts. Officers working 
since 1964 without any flaw could not he treated as ad hoc. In any case 
once review DPCs were held it was incumbent on it to include these 
persons and if necessary to evaluate their services or get it evaluated hy 
appropriate authority to regularise them and then detel'illine seniority. 
F 
But ignoring them in 1987 even they had become member of MLC 
service was arbitrary and unjustified .. [612A-D] , 
Col. D.D. Joshi and Ors: v. Union of India and Ors .. [1983] 2 
SCC 235; Rang

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