UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus K.T. SHASTRI

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 12-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
K.T. SHASTRI 
JANUARY 12, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND K. 
RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 16: Service Law-Defence 
Research Service-Three units--Benefit of enhanced superannuation 
age to the members of one unit-Denial to members of other units-
Held discriminatory. 
Respondent was recruited as a Senior Scientific Officer in the 
Defence Science Service whic:h was subsequently trifurcated and 
reconstituted. 
D 
The Government of India enhanced the superannuation age of 
Scien.tific and Technical personnel of one of the newly constituted units 
upto 60 years by an order dated 24.12.1985. 
The respondent who was working in one of the other units of the 
reconstituted service, filed an a11plication in the Central Administrative 
E Tribunal seeking a direction libat be was entitled to the benefit of 
enhanced age of superannuation upto 60 years as made applicable to the 
other unit which allowed the application. Hence this appeal by the 
Union of India. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. In view of Rullo 12 of the Defence Aeronautical Quality 
Assurance Service Rules, 1979 the benefit of enhanced age of superan-
nuation given to the members of one unit was also available to the 
members of the other unit sim:e the said condition of service was not 
expressly provided for in the Service Rules. At the time of reconstitution 
G 
of the service no option was 1iiven to the employees working in the 
different units to opt for one m· the other of the units. Those who were 
already working in either of the three units were deemed to belong to · 
the respective newly constituted service. Therefore their service condi-
tions will have to. run parallel and no discrimination can be made bet-
ween them by an unilateral action. The classification made between 
H them further has no rational basis and no nexus of such classification to 
20 
U.0.1. v. K.T. SHASTRI [SAWANT, J.] 
21 
the object sought to be achieved has been shown. In the circumstances, 
the denial of the benefit of the enhanced superannuation age to the 
members of one unit while the same is granted to the members of the 
other units amounts to discrimination, violative of Article 16 of the 
Constitution. [23A, F, G, H, 24A] 
A 
2. The decision of the Tribunal is both proper and valid. The 
B 
appellants are directed to reinstate the respondent in service, who 
would continue in service till he attains the age of60 years. [24A, C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4284 
of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.88 of the Central 
Admn. Tribunal Hyderabad in O.A. No. 575 of 1987. 
c 
J 
A.D. Singh, A. Subba Rao, C.V.S. Rao and P. Parmeshwaran 
for the Appellants. 
D 
K.T. Shastri Respondent-in-person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SA WANT, J. The appellants, Union oflndia and the Director, 
Technical Development and Production (Air), Ministry of Defence, 
E 
have preferred this appeal against the decision of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, holding that respondent 
K. T. Sh as try was entitled to remain in service upto the superannuation 
age of 60 years and was not liable to be retired at the alleged superan-
nuation age of 58 years. 
2. The relevant admitted facts are that the respondent was 
recruited as a Senior Scientific Officer on October 12, 1966 in the 
Defence Science Service. He was posted in the Directorate of Techni-
cal Development and Producation (Air), briefly called DTD & P. at 
the relevant time, the Defence Science Service had three units under 
F 
it, namely, 1) Defence Research and Development Organisation G 
(DRDO), 2) Directorate-General of Inspection (DGI) and 3) Directo-
--_, 
rate of Technical Development and Production (Air) (DTD & P) . 
.. , 
The recruitment when made was always to the Defence Science 
Service, and after the recruitment,. the recruits were posted according 
to the exigency of the service, in any of the said three units. Their H 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1990] 1 S.C.R. 
services were inter-changeable and inter-transferable between the 
A three units. All. the service conditions of the persons working in the 
three units including scales cif pay, superannuation age, etc. were the 
same and were regulated by the same set of Rules, viz. Defence 
Science Service Rules. 
B 
3. In the year 1979, the Defence Science Service was trifurcated 
and reconstituted as follows. 
( 1) Defence Resear

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