LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus A.K. BEHL, AVSM, PHS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A . B c [2015] 8 S.C.R. 396 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. A.K. BEHL, AVSM, PHS ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9382-83 of2014) JULY24, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR, R.K. AGRAWAL AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Service Law: Tenure post - Fixed tenure - As provided in Order No. 10(14)06/D(Med) dated 2()1h April, 2007 - Applicable to 0 AFMS officers of the rank of Lt. General and its equivalent as well as to Director General Armed Force Medical Services - Constitutional validity of-Armed Forces Tribunal held that prescription of fixed tenure by the order dated 20.4.2007 was ultra vires the Constitution - On appeal, held: The courts E should exercise restraint in interfering with prescription of retirement age in public service unless such prescription is arbitrary and irrational - The tenure rule was made subject to the conditions that (i) the officer if completes the tenure before he touches 60 years of age, he can continue beyond F the tenure till he completes the age of 60 years, (ii) the officer must demit office at the age of 61 regardless whether he has completed his two years tenure - There is nothing wrong in stipulating a tenure conditionally- Such tenure rule is being applied on uniform basis in all cases without exception - Just G because some officers are allowed in certain situations upto 61 years does not bring about any discrimination between such officers and those officers who completed their tenure before attaining the age of 60 years- Tribunal was in error in H 396 UNION OF INDIA v.A.K. BEHL,AVSM, PHS ETC. 397 interfering with the provisions made by the Government, A prescribing the age of retirement. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Th~ courts should exercise restraint in 8 interfering with any prescription of retirement age in public service unless the age stipulated is so unreasonably low as to make it arbitrary and irrational. [Para 11] (408-B] K. Nagaraj and Ors. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh arid C Anr. 1985 (2) SCR 579: (1985) 1SCC523; T.P. George and Ors. vs. The State of Kera/a and Ors. 1992 (2) SCR 311: 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191; B. Bharat Kumar and Ors. vs. Osmania University and Ors. 2007 (6) SCR 168: (2007) 11 0 . sec 58 - relied on .. 2.1 The Government could classify Lt. Generals and those holding equivalent ranks for a tenure appointment. Such a classification for granting the incumbents a tenure of two years each was constitutionally E permissible. Having regard to the experience, the professional capability and potential of officers who are appointed as Lt. Generals and equivalent, the Government could in its wisdom direct that officers F appointed to that rank shall enjoy a tenure of two years. That prescription however gave rise to an anomaly · where an officer who picked up the rank at a relatively younger age would have to go home even before he ·attained the age of 60 years. This was remedied by the G Government by amending letter dated 1•1 May, 2000 and making the tenure rule subject to two important conditions viz. (i) if the officer concerned completes his tenure of two years before he touches 60 years of age, he can continue beyond the said tenure till he completes H 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A the age of 60 years; and (ii) an officer would demit office at the age of 61 years even if he has not completed his two years tenure by thattime. [Para 13] (410-G-D; 411-A- D] B 2.2 There is nothing wrong in stipulating of a tenure of two years conditionally, specially when unconditional prescription had resulted in an anomaly, where an officer who because of his merit picked-up the rank of Lt General or equivalent early in life had to go out upon his C completing the period of two years in that rank, even before he completed the age of 60 years which incidentally is the age at which other similar ranks in the army and services, retire. So also, the Government was entitled to fix an upper age limit for officers who were D . unable to pick-up the rank early. The stipulation of the two conditions afore-mentioned does not suggest that the Government has not specified tenure for those holding the rank of Lt. General and equivalent in AFMS. The Tribunal, therefore, committed a manifest error in E holding that there was actually no tenure prescribed for those serving in the rank of Lt Generals and equivalent · The tenure rule being conditional, the same could and is being applied on a uniform basis in a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.