1995 (4) TMI 290 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Age of retirement of a Commandant (Selection Grade) in the Border Security Force.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of officers) Rules, 1978.
3. Classification and rank of Commandant (Selection Grade) under the Border Security Force Rules, 1969.
4. Impact of cadre review and creation of Commandant (Selection Grade) posts.
5. Analysis of relevant case law regarding selection grade and its implications on retirement age.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Age of Retirement of a Commandant (Selection Grade):
The core issue was whether a Commandant (Selection Grade) in the Border Security Force is entitled to retire at the age of 58 years, as contended by the respondent, or at 55 years, as argued by the appellants. The respondent claimed that the Commandant (Selection Grade) is a rank higher than that of a Commandant, thus qualifying for retirement at 58 years under Rule 9. The appellants, however, maintained that both positions are equivalent, warranting retirement at 55 years.

2. Interpretation of Rule 9 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of officers) Rules, 1978:
Rule 9 stipulates that officers holding a rank higher than Commandant retire at 58 years, while others retire at 55 years. The Court examined whether "rank" in Rule 9 includes Commandant (Selection Grade) as a higher rank than Commandant. The Court concluded that Commandant (Selection Grade) does not constitute a higher rank but is merely a higher pay scale within the same post.

3. Classification and Rank of Commandant (Selection Grade) under the Border Security Force Rules, 1969:
Under Rule 14A of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, various ranks are listed, and Commandant (Selection Grade) is not classified as a separate category. The creation of the Commandant (Selection Grade) post was intended to address stagnation and provide higher pay, not to establish a distinct rank with separate duties.

4. Impact of Cadre Review and Creation of Commandant (Selection Grade) Posts:
The cadre review in 1981 led to the creation of 123 Commandant (Selection Grade) posts with a higher fixed pay scale to alleviate stagnation among officers. A subsequent review in 1990 increased these posts to 185. Despite the higher pay scale, Commandant (Selection Grade) and Commandant performed identical duties, reinforcing that the former is not a higher rank.

5. Analysis of Relevant Case Law Regarding Selection Grade and Its Implications on Retirement Age:
The Court referred to precedents such as Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India and Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra, which established that selection grade posts, while offering higher pay, do not constitute higher ranks. These cases supported the view that the selection grade is a mechanism to prevent stagnation without altering the rank structure.

The Court also addressed the respondent's reliance on Rules 3, 6, and 7 of the 1978 Rules, which were interpreted as providing higher pay within the same post rather than creating higher ranks. The argument that Commandant (Selection Grade) should have a higher retirement age based on seniority and promotion rules was rejected.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that a Commandant (Selection Grade) does not qualify for retirement at 58 years under Rule 9, as it is not a higher rank than Commandant. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Delhi High Court was set aside. The respondent was to retire at 55 years, with no recovery of emoluments received during the extended service period. The appeal was allowed without costs.