UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS. versus RAJESH KUMAR BASANDHI AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 08-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJESH KUMAR BASANDHI AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 
B 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1989-Rule 7A-Union-Territory of 
C Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992-Recruitment-
Maximum Age Limit-Notification for recruitment of Assistant District 
Attorney/Law Officer issued by appellant under the Rules of 1992 fixing 
maximum age limit as 30 years-Notification challenged contending that 
the maximum age limit is 35 years under the Punjab Rules in view of 
D amendment in 1996-Challenge upheld by Tribunal-On appeal, held, the 
amended Punjab Rules are ipso facto applicable to the conditions of 
service under the provisions of the 1992 Rules-Hence, the maximum age 
limit is 35 years. 
E 
WORDS AND PHRASES : 
'For the time being'-Meaning of 
Appellant issued a notification in May 1996 under the Union 
F Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 
1992 for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Attorney/Law 
Officer. The maximum age limit fixed was 30 years as on 1.1.1996. 
Respondent 1, who was aged 33 years, applied for the post. The 
application of respondent I was rejected by the appellant on the 
ground that the age of the respondent I was beyond the maximum age 
G limit. Respondent I challenged the rejection before Central 
Administrative Tribunal contending that the maximum age limit is 35 
years in view of amendment made in 1996 to the Punjab Civil Services 
Rules, 1989. The Tribunal, by interim order, allowed respondent 1 to 
appear in the examination and selecti11n process and stayed the 
H declaration of the final result of respondent 1. 
452 
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH v. R.K. BASANDHI 
453 
The appellant contended before the Tribunal, that the amendments A 
made to the Punjab Rules would not be ipso facto, applicable for 
recruitment to the Union Territory of Chandigarh unless such 
amendments were adopted by the administration; that the Punjab 
Rules as stood on 13.1.1992, which prescribed the maximum age limit 
as 30 years and were adopted, would alone be applicable to the Union B 
Territory; and that the subsequent amendments were not applicable 
since they were not adopted by the administration. 
By its final judgment, the Tribunal held that the amendments to 
the Punjab Rules made subsequent to 13.1.1992 shall also be applicable 
for recruitment to the posts in Union Territory and that the maximum C 
age limit is 35 years in view of the amendment and directed the 
appellant to declare the result of respondent 1 and consider his case 
for appointment. The Tribunal relied on the proviso to the Union 
Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Services) Rules, 
1992 wherein expression 'from time to time' has been used in reference D 
to the revision of scales of pay of the employees and held that the 
expression is also applicable to the main provision where the phrase 
'for the time being' is used. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. Under the proviso to the Union Territory of Chandigarh 
Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992, the Administrator 
would be competent to bring the scale of pay at par from time to time 
with that of Punjab Services. The Administrator is supposed to do 
something positive as he is made competent to bring about the parity F 
of scale of pay. But conspicuously, this provision is not there in the 
main provision which provides for other conditions of service of 
Chandigarh Administration; which shall be the same as for the time 
being applicable to the members of the Punjab Services. It is not 
provided that it would be competent for the Administrator to apply 
G 
the same conditions of service, as on the contrary provided in the 
proviso in respe~t of revision of scales of pay from time to time; but 
only the Administrator will be competent to do it. Whatever be the 
conditions of service for Punjab Services at the time they are to be 
applied, the same would, ipso facto, apply to Chandigarh Services 
without anything further to intervene for its applicability. [463-B-E) H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1 The mere fact that notification was issued on 13.1.I 992 will 
not change the position if it were to be interpreted that the phrase "for 
the time being" was for a single time. The appellant having itself given 
effect to the rules amended after 1.4.1991, cuts against its own 
argument to say

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