Union of India & Ors Vs. Major R.N. Mathur
 INSC 1384 (4
4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996 Present:
Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik Altaf Ahmed,
Additional Solicitor General, N.N. Goswami, Sr. Adv., Ashok K. Srivastva, Anil Katiyar
and Ms. Mridul Aggarwal, Advs. With them for the appellants In- person for the
O R D
following Order of the Court was delivered:
learned counsel for the appellants and Major R.N. Mathur,
appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jaipur, made on 6.3.1996 in O.A. No.648/94.
the respondent was granted, in 1980, a permanent NCC Commission. The letter of
appointment dated 23.5.1980 indicates that, as a condition, the selected
officers granted permanent NCC Commission under the Government of India's
letter dated August 4, 1978, as amended, might be appointed in NCC units and on
staff including Directorate General, NCC. Clause (5) of the appointment letter
says that these officers, if otherwise not found unfit, would be eligible to
serve till 55 years.
controversy is no longer res integra. This question was considered by this
Court in Union of India & Anr. vs Lt. Col. Komal Chand & Ors. [AIR 1992
SC 1479] wherein it was held that it was considered desirable that before a
person was granted NCC permanent Commission in terms of the above letter, an
opportunity should be given to him to consider the terms and conditions of the
appointment and then he may indicate his choice by exercising his option in the
form prescribed in appendix `B' to the letter. We cannot accept the contention
of the respondent. Having accepted the Commission in 1980, it is not open to
him to contend now that during these years he did not read the terms of
appointment. This Court has clearly laid down that para 8 makes a limited
application of the Civil Services Rules in regard to pension only and cannot be
held to have rendered the provisions of para 5 fixing in clear and express
terms "the age of superannuation as fifty five years nugatory".
contention of the learned counsel, Mr. Mukhoty, appearing in that case that
since the rules framed under Section 13 of the NCC Act do not fix the age of
retirement of the respondents, they could not be retired at the age of 55
years, therefore, was not accepted by this Court. It was held that "it is
true that there is no statutory rules at all dealing with the age of
superannuation of the respondents but for that reason the age which is fixed
for the civil servants governed by the Fundamental Rules cannot be brought in.
In the absence of a Rule to the contrary the Central Government is fully authorised
to fix the age which it has done and which was accepted voluntarily by the
respondents. They must now retire when they reach the age of 55 years."
Thus, it is clear that the appointment was made fixing the age of
superannuation of 55 years. In terms thereof, the officer is required to retire
at the age of 55 years.
in an admitted position that the Fundamental Rules have no application and the
statutory rules equally have no application. Under these circumstances, the
Tribunal is clearly in error in directing the appellants to retain the
respondent herein, in service till 57 years.
appeal is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as