REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2014 (Ari i!

" #$% #& SLP (C' N#. 200( #& 2010' M)*#r +,!,r)- H.M. Si!"./ VSM V,r $ U!i#! #& I!2i) )!2 A!r. JUD+MENT 0 R, 1#!2,!% 0 A11,--)!%

J)"2i . Si!". 3.,.)r/ J. 1. The appellant was commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the Indian

Army on 15.6.1969. His initial induction was into the Armoured Corps. On 5.5.19!" the appellant chan#ed his cadre. He permanently mo$ed into the %e&ence 'esearch and %e$elopment Or#anisation (hereina&ter re&erred to as )the %'%O*+. Ha$in# #one throu#h decades o& ri#orous military

ser$ice and ha$in# consistently earned onward promotions to hi#her ran,sas were due to him &rom time to time- he was #ranted actin# ran, o& .a/or 0eneral on 1.6. 112- a&ter he had 3een appro$ed &or promotion to the ran, o& .a/or 0eneral 3y a duly constituted Selection 4oard. . On "1.". 115 Lieutenant 0eneral 'a$inder 5ath retired &rom ser$ice.

'esultantly a $acancy in the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral 3ecame a$aila3le. On 1.1. 116 the appellant claims to ha$e 3ecome eli#i3le &or the
Page 1

consideration &or promotion to the a3o$e $acancy. It would 3e rele$ant to mention- that at that /uncture- in the cadre o& .a/or 0enerals- the appellant was the senior most ser$in# o&&icer (as per seniority list dated 9.1 . 116+ eli#i3le &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. In the 0o$ernment o& India #a6ette (pu3lished on 6.1 . 117+ the appellant was shown as ha$in# 3een promoted as su3stanti$e .a/or 0eneral with e&&ect &rom 7.1. 112. It would also 3e rele$ant to mention- that the name o& the

appellant was included in the name announced 3y the 8resident o& India &or the award o& the 9ishist Se$a .edal on 6.1. 117. The said award was sou#ht to 3e 3estowed upon the appellant- &or his ha$in# rendered distin#uished ser$ice o& an e:ceptional order to the nation. It is there&orethat the appellant was desirous- that his claim 3e considered &or onward promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. At that /uncture- the appellant had not only held the ran, o& .a/or 0eneral &or more 1! months- he had also earned two con&idential reports in the said ran,. The record appended to the pleadin#s indicates- that he had also 3een #ranted $i#ilance clearance. %espite the a3o$e- the appellant was not considered eli#i3le &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral as he had not completed two years* ser$ice in the ran, o& .a/or 0eneral at that time. ". ;nder the circumstances mentioned in the &ore#oin# para#raph- A9.

'. <ada$- an o&&icer &rom the Indian Air =orce was inducted into the %'%O on 9.1 . 115- a#ainst the $acancy in the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral

created 3y Lieutenant 0eneral 'a$inder 5ath. A9. '. <ada$ retired &rom
Page 2

ser$ice with e&&ect &rom "1.1 . 116. As such- a $acancy in the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral 3ecame a$aila3le with e&&ect &rom 1.1. 117. 2. On "1.2. 117- the appellant addressed a representation to the

%irector 0eneral %'%O assertin#- that he was eli#i3le &or promotion a#ainst the e:istin# $acancy o& Lieutenant 0eneral- as he &ul&illed the laid down criteria. He e:pressly pointed out in his a3o$e representation- that in the e$ent o& his promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral his a#e o& retirement would stand e:tended. As .a/or 0eneral he would retire at the a#e o& 59 years- on 9. . 11! (as the appellant date o& 3irth is . .1929+. On his promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral his a#e o& retirement would stand e:tended to !. . 119 i.e.- to 61 years. The appellant

there&ore re>uested the authorities- to immediately constitute and con$ene a meetin# o& the Selection 4oard- &or considerin# his claim &or onward promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. =or the a3o$e purpose- the appellant also met $arious hi#her authorities. On all such occasions he was in&ormed- that the action to con$ene a meetin# o& the Selection 4oard was under process. In &act- in 5o$em3er- 117 the appellant was assuredthat the meetin# o& Selection 4oard would 3e held in %ecem3er- 117. He was also assured- that in the e$ent o& his 3ein# considered suita3le &or promotion 3y the Selection 4oard- he will actually 3e promoted to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- 3e&ore the date o& his retirement ( 9. . 11!+ as .a/or 0eneral.

Page 3

5.

Since the date o& appellant*s retirement ?

9. . 11! was &ast@

approachin#- and 3ecause it seemed to the appellant that nothin# was mo$in#- the appellant su3mitted his #rie$ance to the authorities in writin#prayin# &or immediate action in the matter. In this 3ehal& he also sou#ht personal hearin#- to present his case. These pleas were raised 3y the appellant throu#h separate communications dated 6.1 . 117 (to the SA to the %e&ence .inister- and to the %'%O+. On !. . 11! he addressed a letter &or the same purpose- to the 8ersonal Secretary to the %e&ence .inister. 6. Two days prior to the appellant*s retirement on superannuation 7. . 11! a meetin# o& the Selection

( 9. . 11!- as .a/or 0eneral+- on

4oard &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral was con$ened. The Selection 4oard cleared the appellant &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. The Selection 4oard cleared only the name o& the appellant &or the a3o$e promotion- &rom out o& a panel o& 2 names. 7. In order to ensure that the appellant*s claim &or promotion to the ran,

o& Lieutenant 0eneral is not &rustrated- the 8resident o& India 3y an order dated 9. . 11!- was pleased to #rant the appellant e:tension o& ser$ice&or a period o& three months. A rele$ant e:tract o& the a3o$e order is 3ein# reproduced hereinunderA BI am directed to con$ey the sanction o& the 8resident to the #rant o& e:tension in ser$ice to IC@ " !9 .a/ 0en H... Sin#h9S.- AC- C9'%C- A$adi a permanently seconded o&&icer o&
Page 4

%e&ence 'esearch D %e$elopment Or#anisation- &or a period o& three months with e&&ect &rom 11 .ar 11! or till the appro$al o& ACC- whiche$er is earlier. This issues with the concurrence o& .O%E=in('D%+ $ide their %y 5o. 5! E=in ('D%+ dated 9 =e3 11!.F (emphasis is ours+ A perusal o& the a3o$e communication re$eals- that the a&oresaid e:tension o& ser$ice was #ranted to the appellant- to await the appro$al o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet. In this 3ehal& it would 3e rele$ant to mention- that in the process o& consideration &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- the recommendation made 3y the Selection 4oard re>uires the appro$al o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet3e&ore it is #i$en e&&ect to. It is apparent that the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- could not &inalise the matter durin# the appellant*s e:tended tenure o& three months. As such- &or the same reasons- the 8resident o& India was pleased to #rant the appellant a &urther e:tension in ser$ice (as .a/or 0eneral+ &or a period o& one month i.e.- up to "1.6. 11! or till the appro$al o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- whiche$er was earlier. !. On .6. 11!- the Secretariat o& the Appointments Committee o& the

Ca3inet (.inistry o& 8ersonnel- 8u3lic 0rie$ances and 8ensions%epartment o& 8ersonnel and Trainin#+ issued a communication with the &ollowin# o3ser$ationsA

Page 5

B . The Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet has not appro$ed the promotion o& IC@ " !9 .a/ 0en H... Sin#h- a permanently seconded o&&icer o& %'%O- to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral.F In consonance with the order #rantin# e:tension in ser$ice- the %'%O issued an order dated ".6. 11!- retirin# the appellant &rom the ran, o& .a/or 0eneral with immediate e&&ect. The appellant assailed the a3o$e order dated .6. 11! (denyin# the appellant promotion to the ran, o&

Lieutenant 0eneral+- and the order dated ".6. 11! (3y which the appellant was retired &rom ser$ice+ 3y &ilin# Grit 8etition 5o. 1551! o& 11! 3e&ore the Hi#h Court o& Hudicature at .adras (hereina&ter re&erred to as )the Hi#h Court*+. Con$enin# a meetin# o& the Selection 4oard on 7. . 11! i.e.- /ust two days 3e&ore the appellant was to retire on attainin# the a#e o& superannuation- as also- the consideration o& the recommendation made 3y the Selection 4oard at the hands o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- more than three months a&ter the date on which the appellant would retire &rom ser$ice- were $i#orously re&erred to- to demonstrate the apathy at the hands o& the authorities- which accordin# to the appellanthad resulted in denial o& promotion to him. 9. In response to the alle#ed delay in the matter o& considerin# the

appellant*s claim &or promotion- it was pointed out that the %'%O had a lar#e num3er o& hi#h $alue pro/ects $i6. desi#n- de$elopment and production o& Li#ht Com3at Aircra&t- desi#n and de$elopment o& Ia$eri Cn#ine- desi#n and de$elopment o& Air3orne Carly Garnin# System and a
Page 6

num3er o& pro/ects related to up#radation o& a$ionics and electronics war&are system- Su,hoi- .I0@ 7 and LCAJ accordin#ly a decision was ta,en 3y the %'%O i.e.- the appellant*s controllin# authority- to earmar, the $acancy o& Lieutenant 0eneral (a#ainst which the appellant was claimin# consideration+- &or an o&&icer o& e>ui$alent ran, &rom the Indian Air =orcewho would 3e in a position to o$ersee- pro$ide #uidance and coordinate all the a3o$ementioned hi#hly sensiti$e and intricate pro/ects. The a3o$e

tentati$e determination &or &illin# up the $acancy o& Lieutenant 0eneral &rom the Indian Air =orce was- howe$er- su3se>uently re$iewed in consultation with the 0o$ernment o& India. The 0o$ernment o& India on 12. . 11!

&inally decided to &ill up the $acancy o& Lieutenant 0eneral 3y promotion o& a permanently seconded ser$ice o&&icer o& the %'%O. It was there&ore asserted- that non@holdin# o& the meetin# o& the Selection 4oard- and the non@&inalisation o& the consideration o& the appellant*s claim &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- could not 3e descri3ed as a deli3erate and intentional attempt 3y the authorities to depri$e the appellant o& his promotional opportunity. 11. In its pleadin#s the ;nion o& India adopt a clear stand- that the

appellant ha$in# attained the a#e o& superannuation on 9. . 11!- could not 3e promoted as Lieutenant 0eneral Bwhile he was on e:tensionF. It was also the contention o& the ;nion o& India- that since the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet had not appro$ed the appellant*s promotion to

Page 7

the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- the same could not 3e challen#ed specially 3ecause the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet had #i$en $alid reasons to de&er the recommendation o& the Selection 4oard E %epartmental 8romotion Committee. The ;nion o& India ac,nowled#edthat the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet was the competent authority to appro$e the recommendation &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral (made 3y the Selection 4oard+. It was admitted- that the Selection 4oard in its meetin# held on 7. . 11! had recommended the appellant &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. 8endin# appro$al o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- the appellant had crossed the a#e o& his retirement on superannuation (in the ran, o& .a/or 0eneral- on 9. . 11!+. Therea&ter- the appellant was #ranted e:tension in ser$ice 3eyond the period o& his retirement up to "1.6. 11!. 11. Ha$in# considered the contentions and prayers made 3y the

appellant- a Sin#le 4ench o& the Hi#h Court while disposin# o& the Grit 8etition 5o. 1551! o& 11!- recorded the &ollowin# o3ser$ationsA B21. Ghen the petitioner*s e:tension o& ser$ice was not on the #round o& e:i#ency- %'%O 3ein# mainly ci$ilian- 'ules do not permit promotion on e:tension. ACC*s action in not #rantin# appro$al to the recommendation made 3y Selection 4oard is in accordance with the 'ules and the same cannot 3e assailed. 8etitioner cannot contend that he has 3een discriminated in not #rantin# promotion while on e:tension. 21. There is no su3stance in the contention that the 8etitioner ha$in# 3een e:tended his ser$ice- he ou#ht to ha$e 3een #ranted promotion. C:tension o& ser$ice does not #i$e rise the le#itimate e:pectation &or promotion. The e:tensions in tenure
Page 8

were #i$en to the petitioner to ensure that procedure relatin# to appro$al o& competent authority on the recommendation o& Selection 4oard was completed in an o3/ecti$e manner 3y &ollowin# prescri3ed process. On culmination o& process- ACC is the competent authority came to the decision not to promote the petitioner. As such there is not incoherence and ar3itrariness in the decision warrantin# e:ercise o& /udicial re$iew.F In the li#ht o& the a3o$e o3ser$ations Grit 8etition 5o. 1551! o& 11! was dismissed on 5.5. 119. 1 . %issatis&ied with the dismissal o& Grit 8etition 5o. 1551! o& 11!- the

appellant &iled an intra court Grit Appeal 5o. 779 o& 119. In the process o& ad/udicatin# upon the contro$ersy raised in the a3o$ementioned Grit Appeal- a %i$ision 4ench o& the Hi#h Court &ramed two >uestions &or its consideration. =irstly- whether the appellant .a/or 0eneral H... Sin#h had any &undamental ri#ht &or promotion solely on the 3asis o& the recommendation o& the Selection 4oard. And secondly- whether

Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet was lia3le to accept the recommendation made 3y the Selection 4oard in &a$our o& the appellantand conse>uently- order the appellant*s promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. 'elyin# on para#raph 11! o& the 'e#ulation o& Army which

delineates the constitution and duties o& the Selection 4oard- the %i$ision 4ench concluded that the recommendations o& the Selection 4oard were merely recommendatory in nature- and there&ore- answered the &irst >uestion in the ne#ati$e. The %i$ision 4ench &urther held- that a le#itimate

Page 9

claim &or the promotion would arise- only i& a recommendation made 3y the Selection 4oard #ets the appro$al o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet. 'elyin# on the /ud#ments rendered 3y this Court in %r. H.

.u,her/ee 9s. ;nion o& India and others- 1992 Supp. (1+ SCC 51- ;nion o& India and others 9s. 5.8. %hamania and others- 1995 Supp. (1+ SCC 1and =ood Corporation o& India and others 9s. 8arashotam %as 4ansal and others- ( 11!+ 5 SCC 111- the %i$ision 4ench o& the Hi#h Court &urther concluded- that the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet was not 3ound 3y the recommendation o& the Selection 4oard. It accordin#ly held- that &or /usti&ia3le reasons- the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet had the ri#ht to either accept- or to re&use the recommendation o& the Selection 4oard. In sum and su3stance it came to 3e concluded- that unless it was shown that the determination o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet su&&ered &rom ar3itrariness or mala&ides and capriciousness- the same could not 3e inter&ered with. The %i$ision 4ench o& the Hi#h Court ha$in# &ound none o& the a3o$e noted $ices in the determination o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- answered the second >uestion also in the ne#ati$e. 1". 4ased on its a&orementioned determination- the Hi#h Court dismissed 119- on 1.7. 119. %issatis&ied with the order

Grit Appeal 5o. 779 o&

dated 5.5. 119 (passed 3y the Sin#le Hud#e o& the Hi#h Court- dismissin# Grit 8etition 5o. 1551! o& 119+- and the order dated 1.7. 119 (passed 3y

Page 10

the %i$ision 4ench o& the Hi#h Court dismissin# Grit Appeal 5o. 779 o& 119+- the appellant approached this Court 3y &ilin# 8etition &or Special Lea$e to Appeal (C+ 5o. 11! o& 111. On 11.1. 111 this Court issued notice in this matter. On completion o& pleadin#s the matter was listed &or &inal disposal. 12. 15. Lea$e #ranted. On 9.!. 11" while hearin# the matter this Court passed the

&ollowin# orderA B4e&ore we proceed &or &urther hearin# in the matter- we would li,e to #o throu#h the deli3erations o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet K&or short )the ACC*L 3y which the recommendations o& the Selection 4oard was not accepted in the case o& the petitioner. Hence the records o& the Selection 4oard and the &inal orders passed therein in the case o& the petitioner 3e placed 3e&ore the Court on the ne:t date o& hearin#- i.e.- 11 th Septem3er- 11".F Therea&ter on 1 .9. 11" this Court passed the &ollowin# orderA BGe ha$e perused the record produced 3e&ore us and we ha$e also heard the ar#uments o& learned Additional Solicitor 0eneralF Ld. A.S.0. has sou#ht time to see, instructions. On the ne:t date- Ld. A.S.0. will ensure that a copy o& the note put up to the A.C.C. and the decision o& A.C.C. as well as a copy o& the recommendation dated 7 th =e3ruary- 11! o& the Selection 4oard are made a$aila3le to the Court List this matter on "rd Septem3er- 11".F

Page 11

The summonin# o& the record re&erred to in the orders e:tracted hereina3o$e- had 3ecome essential &or two reasons. =irstly- the appellant did not contest the &indin#s recorded 3y the %i$ision 4ench o& the Hi#h Court on the two >uestions &ramed 3y the Hi#h Court- &or the disposal o& Grit Appeal 5o. 779 o& 119. Ha$in# #i$en our thou#ht&ul consideration to the determination rendered 3y the Hi#h Court- on the two >uestions &ramed 3y it- we must ac,nowled#e that the Hi#h Court was &ully /usti&ied in drawin# its conclusions. Ge there&ore here3y a&&irm the a3o$e &indin#s recorded 3y the Hi#h Court. Accordin# to the appellant- the Hi#h Court had misdirected itsel& in its a3o$e determination. It was the su3mission o& the appellant- that the determination o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- was not supported 3y /usti&ia3le reasons. It was asserted- that the determination o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet was ar3itraryand 3ased on e:traneous consideration. Inso&ar as the instant aspect o& the matter is concerned- it was the $ehement su3mission o& the appellantthat the Hi#h Court had not addressed the issue at all. 16. The solitary contention ad$anced at the hands o& the appellant- was

3ased on the recommendation made 3y the Selection 4oard on 7. . 11!and the consideration o& the a3o$e recommendation 3y the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet (leadin# to the re/ection o& the appellant*s claim &or the promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral+. =or e&&ecti$ely

understandin# and determinin# the solitary contention at the hands o& the appellant- it is essential to e:tract the minutes o& the meetin# o& the
Page 12

Selection 4oard dated

7. . 11!- as also- the proceedin#s o& the

Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet. Githout understandin# the tenor and e&&ect o& the a3o$e deli3erations- it would not 3e possi3le to e:press our &indin#s and the reasons. Had the a3o$e proceedin#s re$ealed

sensiti$e material- improper &or pu3lic consumption- or detrimental to national interest- we would ha$e chosen to tread cautiously. The

deli3erations which resulted in denial o& promotion to the appellant (to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral+- howe$er- ha$e no such mis#i$in#s. Ge ha$e there&ore no hesitation in e:tractin# the minutes o& the meetin# o& the Selection 4oard dated hereinunderA@ B.I5;TCS O= (1E 11!+ %'%O SCLCCTIO5 4OA'% .CCTI50 HCL% O5 7 =C4 11! The Selection 4oard comprisin# the &ollowin#- met on 7 =e3 1! in the o&&ice o& the Scienti&ic Ad$isor to 'a,sha .antri'oom 5o. 5" - %'%O 4hawan- 5ew %elhiA@ (a+ (3+ (c+ (d+ Shri .. 5atara/an- SA to '. @ Chairman Shri 8radeep Iumar- Secretary (%8+ @ .em3er Lt. 0en. ..L. 5aidu89S.- A9S.- <S.- 9COAS @ .em3er %r. %. 4aner/ee%S D CC 'D% (A.S+ @ .em3er Secretary 7. . 11!. The same are 3ein# reproduced

. %e&ence Secretary did not attend the meetin# due to other prior commitments. ". SA to '. 3rie&ed the 4oard to say that only one $acancy in the ran, o& Lt. 0en e:ists. The other $acancy in lieu o& Scientist )H* has 3een re&erred 3ac, to the '. &or reconsideration and there&ore will 3e considered only a&ter a decision.

Page 13

2. The 4oard considered the &ollowin# 12 o&&icers &or promotion to the actin# ran, o& Lt. 0enA@ Ser 5o. (i+ (ii+ (iii+ (i$+ IC 5o.- 'an,- 5ame D Corps .'@1"5"9 .a/ 0en H.I. 4ansal- A.C IC@ " !9 .a/ 0en H... Sin#h- 9S.- AC IC@ "!51 .a/ 0en S.S. %ahiya- A9S.- 9S. C.C IC@ 26"1 .a/ 0en ;man# Iapoor- C.C

5. 4ased on deli3erations and record o& ser$ice- past per&ormance- >ualities o& leadership as well as $ision- the 4oard recommends IC@ " !9 .a/ 0en H. Sin#h- 9S.- AC &or promotion. SdE@ %SDCC 'D% (A.S+ .em3er Secretary SdE@ 9COAS .em3erF (emphasis is ours+ The proceedin#s recorded 3y the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet while re/ectin# the appellant*s claim &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral are also 3ein# set out 3elowA@ BThe .inistry o& %e&ence has- with the appro$al o& the 'a,sha .antri proposed the promotion o& IC@ " !9 .a/ 0en H. Sin#ha permanently seconded o&&icer o& the %'%O- to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. . .a/ 0en H. Sin#h (do3A 1 .1 .1929+ was due &or superannuation on 9th =e3ruary- 11! on attainin# the a#e o& 59 years which is the a#e o& superannuation &or o&&icers o& the ran, o& .a/or 0enerals who are permanently seconded to the %'%O. A Selection 4oard which met on 7 th =e3ruary- 11! to consider eli#i3le o&&icers o& the ran, o& .a/or 0eneral permanently seconded to the %'%O &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- recommended .a/or 0eneral Sin#h &or promotion. As the o&&icer was due &or retirement on 9 th =e3ruary- 11! appro$al o& the 'a,sha .antri was o3tained &or #i$in# him e:tension o& ser$ice o& three months in the ran, o& .a/or 0eneral or till the appro$al o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet to his promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- whiche$er is earlier. O&&icers in the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral retire on attainin# the a#e o& 61 years.
Page 14

". The propriety o& #rant o& e:tension to the o&&icer at the $er#e o& his superannuation and also- that o& #rant o& promotion to the o&&icer while on e:tension has 3een e:amined. The matter has 3een discussed- separately- with o&&icers &rom the %epartment o& 8ersonnel and Trainin#J the %'%O- and alsothe .inistry o& %e&ence (.ilitary Secretary*s 4ranch+. This apart- a le#al notice has 3een recei$ed alle#in# per/ury on the 3asis o& in&ormation secured &rom the .inistry o& %e&ence under the 'i#ht to In&ormation Act. A representation has also 3een recei$ed &rom an o&&icer- .a/ 0en 88 %as- alle#in# discrimination. 2. In terms o& the pro$isions o& Section 16A(2+ o& the Army Act an o&&icer who has attained the a#e o& retirement or has 3ecome due &or such retirement on completion o& his tenuremay 3e retained in the ser$ice &or a &urther period 3y the Central 0o$ernment- i& the e:i#encies o& the ser$ice so re>uire. 5. It is e$ident &rom the a3o$e pro$isions that &or #rant o& e:tension in ser$ice- the re>uirement to 3e &ul&illed- primarily- is the e:i#encies o& ser$ice. In the note which was put up to the 'a,sha .antri solicitin# appro$al to the proposal &or #rant o& e:tension- no such e:i#ency has 3een cited. The only issue that was mentioned in support o& the proposal &or e:tension was that the o&&icer had 3een recommended &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. This in the 3ac,#round o& the pro$isions o& the Act mentioned a3o$e- is no su&&icient #round &or e:tension. 6. The Chie& Controller 'esearch D %e$elopment with whom the matter was discussed has pro$ided copies o& orders issued in the years 1995 and 1996 when o&&icers o& the ran, o& .a/or 0eneral were #ranted e:tensions. C:tensions in ser$ice were #ranted with the appro$al o& the Inte#rated =inance %i$ision in the .inistry o& %e&ence thou#h appro$al o& the &inance an#le is not strictly rele$ant to the #rant o& e:tensions. The other two instances cited are o& Shri 8. 9enu#opalan- Outstandin# Scientist in the %'%L- Hydera3ad who was #ranted e:tension pendin# a decision on the >uestion o& his re#ular e:tension under ='.56 as a ScientistJ and o& the post retirement appointment o& 9ice Admiral 8C 4hasin on contract 3asis in the AT98. These two cases are not rele$ant to the case o& .a/ 0en Sin#h- present under consideration.

Page 15

7. An instance has 3een cited- durin# discussions- o& e:tension o& ser$ice #ranted in the year 1997 or therea3outs to .a/or 0eneral .ali, who was due &or superannuation- and his promotion to the ran, o& Lt. 0en while on e:tension. !. The orders issued 3y the %epartment o& 8ersonnel and Trainin# lay down that while e:tension could 3e #ranted in e:ceptional circumstances- there can 3e no promotion durin# the period o& such e:tension. These orders apply to the ci$ilian esta3lishment. The instructions which apply to the %e&ence &orces permit e:tension in ser$ice only i& the e:i#encies so demand. %'%O is mainly ci$ilian- and the 'ules- as mentioned a3o$e- do not permit promotion on e:tension. 9. The a3o$e apart- the plea ta,en the representation o& .a/ 0en 8.8. %as- and also the le#al notice needs to 3e ,ept in $iew. Instances o& o&&icers in the Armed =orces retirin# /ust 3e&ore the $acancies comin# their way and 3ein# denied empanelment are not uncommon. C:tensions moti$ated 3y reasons o& promotion 3ein# close at hand can ha$e repercussions. 11. The a3o$e part- the AC' &ormat which is &ollowed &or the o&&icers o& this ran,- seconded to the %'%O- which has 3een applied &or recordin# o& AC's in the present case re$eal that &itness &or promotion should 3e speci&ically recorded in the ACr. A perusal o& the AC' o& .a/ 0en Sin#h re$eals that speci&ic record o& &itness &or promotion has not 3een made. 11. .ore pointedly- two >uestions stand out- &irstly- the dou3t&ul authority and #rounds &or #rantin# e:tensions- ta,in# into account that there was no e:i#ency and- secondly- e:tensionsmoti$ated 3y a promotion in the o&&in# durin# the e:tension period cannot 3e allowed. It cannot 3e i#nored also that such situations tri##er liti#ation- which should 3est 3e a$oided in such instances. 1 . ;nder the a3o$e circumstances- it would 3e appropriate not to appro$e the promotion o& .a/ 0en H... Sin#h to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. SdE@ Ca3inet Secretary .5. 11!

Page 16

HO.C .I5ISTC'

SdE@ !.5. 11!

8'I.C .I5ISTC' has appro$ed 8ara 1 a3o$e with the direction that the o3ser$ation in 8aras 5 and ! may 3e communicated to the .O% &or the &uture. SdE@ "1.5. 11! %irector 8rime .inister*s O&&ice 5ew %elhiF (emphasis is ours+ 17. The appellant points out- that the determination o& the Appointments

SdE@ Ca3inet Secretary .6. 11!

Committee o& the Ca3inet- o$erloo,ed the &actual position stated in the counter a&&ida$it- &iled /ointly on 3ehal& o& respondent nos. 1 and (respondent no.1 ? the ;nion o& India- throu#h Secretariat o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inetJ and respondent no. ? the

%'%O throu#h its %irector 0eneral+. In this 3ehal& our attention was drawn to para#raphs " (:$ii+ and " (:$iii+ which are 3ein# e:tracted 3elowA B" (:$ii+ A meetin# o& the Selection 4oard was held on 7. . 11! and the Selection 4oard recommended the name o& the petitioner &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. The post o& Lieutenant 0eneral then carried the pay scale o& 's. 211@5 5@ 2511. Any appointment a#ainst this post re>uires the appro$al o& Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet (ACC+ ('espondent 5o.1+- which is a hi#h power 3ody consistin# o& the Hon*3le 8rime .inister o& India- Hon*3le ;nion Home .inister- Hon*3le ;nion .inister o& %epartment o& 8ersonnel and Hon*3le ;nion %e&ence .inister. As such- the recommendation o& the Selection 4oard were sent to ACC. In %'%O- the retirement a#e o& an o&&icer o& the ran, o& .a/ 0enEe>ui$alent which the petitioner held at that time is 59 years. The petitioner was due to retire &rom ser$ice w.e.& 9. . 11!. ;nder these circumstances- he was #i$en an
Page 17

e:tension o& ser$ice &or a period o& three months or till the decision o& ACC was recei$ed whiche$er was earlier. As the decision o& ACC was not recei$ed till "1.5. 11!- his ser$ice was e:tended &urther &or a period o& one month w.e.& 1.6. 11! on the same terms and conditions. " (:$iii+ The decision o& ACC ('espondent 5o.1+ re#ardin# non@ appro$al o& promotion o& the petitioner to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral communicated $ide letter dated .6. 11! was recei$ed 3y respondent no. on ".6. 11! and the latter had to issue orders o& the petitioner*s retirement &rom ser$ice &rom ".6. 11!.F (emphasis is ours+ 1!. 'e&errin# to the &actual position depicted in the /oint counter a&&ida$it - it was the $ehement

&iled on 3ehal& o& the respondent nos. 1 and

su3mission o& the appellant- that the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet e:ceeded its /urisdiction in e:aminin# the $alidity o& the orders 3y which the appellant was #ranted e:tension in ser$ice. It was the

su3mission o& the appellant- that the only >uestion 3e&ore the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- conse>uent upon the recommendations made 3y the Selection 4oard on 7. . 11!- was in connection with the merits o& the claim o& the appellant- &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. Addin# to the a3o$e contention- it was also the su3mission o& the appellantthat the Selection 4oard- conse>uent upon its deli3erations held on 7. . 11!- arri$ed at its &indin#s 3ased on the appellant*s ser$ice recordpast per&ormance- >ualities o& leadership- as well as- $ision- that the appellant was worthy o& promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. The Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- durin# the course o& its deli3erations- did not &ind &ault with the a3o$e conclusion drawn 3y the

Page 18

Selection 4oard. As such- it was sou#ht to 3e asserted- that e$en the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet must 3e deemed to ha$e endorsed the merit and suita3ility o& the appellant- &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. 19. In order to contest the su3missions ad$anced at the hands o& the

appellant- learned senior counsel representin# (respondent nos. 1 and + emphatically relied upon the proceedin#s o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet. The proceedin#s under re&erence ha$e 3een e:tracted 3y us hereina3o$e. 'e&errin# to the a3o$e proceedin#s- learned senior

counsel &or the respondents laid #reat emphasis on the o3ser$ations recorded in para#raphs ! and 9 thereo&. It was pointed out- that in terms o& the orders issued 3y the %epartment o& 8ersonnel and Trainin#- promotion durin# the period o& e:tension was un>uestiona3ly 3arred. In this 3ehal& it was the contention o& the learned senior counsel &or the respondents- that with e&&ect &rom 1.". 11!- the appellant (who had attained the a#e o& retirement on superannuation on 9. . 11!+- was on e:tension in ser$ice. There was- there&ore- no >uestion o& his 3ein# considered &or promotion durin# the period o& such e:tension. In addition to the a&oresaid cate#oric stand adopted 3y the learned senior counsel &or the respondents- it was sou#ht to 3e reiterated- that the orders dated 9. . 11! and "1.5. 11!- 3y which the appellant was #ranted e:tension in ser$ice- &or periods o& three months and one month respecti$ely- were not sustaina3le in law- inasmuch as- they were in $iolation o& 'ule 16A o& the Army 'ules which postulatesPage 19

that an o&&icers who has attained the a#e o& retirement or has 3ecome due &or such retirement on completion o& his tenure- may 3e retained in ser$ice &or a &urther period 3y the Central 0o$ernment- only i& the e:i#encies o& ser$ice so re>uire. It was the su3mission o& learned senior counsel &or the respondents- that retention in ser$ice o& the appellant was not on account o& any e:i#ency o& ser$ice. 1. Ge ha$e #i$en our thou#ht&ul consideration to the su3missions

ad$anced at the hands o& the learned counsel &or the ri$al parties. =irst and &oremost- we ha$e no hesitation in endorsin# the su3mission ad$anced at the hands o& the appellant- that the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet did not in any manner upset the &indin# recorded 3y the Selection 4oard- in respect o& the merit and suita3ility o& the appellant &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. On the instant aspect o& the matter- the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet has maintained a sullen silence. C$en in the pleadin#s &iled on 3ehal& o& the respondents- there is an ironic >uiescence. There&ore- all other issues apart- the appellant must 3e

deemed to ha$e 3een &ound suita3le &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- e$en 3y the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet. 1. Ge ha$e e:tracted hereina3o$e the &actual position noticed 3y the

respondents in para#raphs "(:$ii+ and "(:$iii+ o& their counter a&&ida$it. I& the a&oresaid a$erments are read in con/unction to the &actual position- that the $acancy a#ainst which the claim o& the appellant was considered- had
Page 20

arisen on 1.1. 117- it clearly emer#es- that the appellant was the senior most eli#i3le o&&icer holdin# the ran, o& .a/or 0eneral whose name &ell in the 6one o& consideration &or promotion. The Selection 4oard ha$in#

conducted its deli3erations sin#ularly chose the name o& the appellant &rom the panel o& &our names 3e&ore it. The proceedin#s o& the Selection 4oard re$eal- that its recommendations were 3ased on record o& ser$ice- past per&ormance- >ualities o& leadership- as well as- $ision. 5o other name 3esides the appellant*s name was recommended &or promotion. Ha$in# 3een so recommended- the 8resident o& India- in the &irst instance- 3y an order dated 9. . 11!- e:tended the ser$ice o& the appellant- &or the period o& three months with e&&ect &rom 1.". 11! Bor till the appro$al o& the ACC whiche$er is earlierF. Since the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet did not render its determination within the e:tended period e:pressed in the order dated 9. . 11!- yet another order to the same e&&ect was issued 3y the 8resident o& India on "1.5. 11! e:tendin# the ser$ice o& the appellant &or a &urther period o& one month with e&&ect &rom 1.6. 11! Bor till the appro$al o& the ACC whiche$er is earlierF. The 8resident o& India-

there&ore- was conscious o& the &act while #rantin# e:tension in ser$ice to the appellant- the appellant*s case &or onward promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral was under consideration. There&ore- to ensure that the a&oresaid consideration &ructi&ied into a result one way or the othere:tensions were #ranted to the appellant twice o$er. The a&oresaid

determination at the hands o& the 8resident o& India in #rantin# e:tension in
Page 21

ser$ice to the appellant- stands noticed in the &actual position e:pressed in para#raphs "(:$ii+ and "(:$iii+ o& the counter a&&ida$it &iled on 3ehal& o& the respondents 1 and . It is not possi3le &or us to accept- that the a&oresaid determination in allowin# e:tension in ser$ice to the appellant can 3e descri3ed as 3ein# in $iolation o& the norms stipulated in 'ule 16A o& the Army 'ules. It is necessary in this 3ehal&- &or us to test the a3o$e

conclusion drawn 3y us- on the touchstone o& Articles 12 and 16 o& the Constitution o& India. It is not a matter o& dispute- that the appellant was promoted to the ran, o& su3stanti$e .a/or 0eneral with e&&ect &rom 7.1. 112. It is also not a matter o& dispute- that the su3stanti$e $acancy in the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- a#ainst which the appellant was eli#i3le &or consideration- 3ecame a$aila3le with e&&ect &rom 1.1. 117. C$en thou#h the appellant had nearly 12 months o& military ser$ice remainin# at the a&oresaid /uncture- the procedure contemplated &or ma,in# promotions to the ran, o& the Lieutenant 0eneral was initiated &or the &irst time /ust two days 3e&ore the date o& retirement o& the appellant- on 7. . 11!. Althou#h it is the contention o& the learned senior counsel &or the respondents- that the delay in con$enin# the Selection 4oard and conductin# its proceedin#s was not deli3erate or mala&ide- yet there can 3e no dou3t a3out the &actthat the appellant was not responsi3le &or such delay. =or all intents and purposes- he was repeatedly see,in# consideration orally as well as in writin#. He had 3een repeatedly in&ormin# the authorities a3out the

approachin# date o& his retirement. In response- he was always assuredPage 22

that i& &ound suita3le- he would 3e actually promoted prior to the date o& his retirement. It was &or the respondents to con$ene the meetin# o& the

Selection 4oard. Since the Selection 4oard came to 3e con$ened &or the $acancy which had arisen on 1.1. 117 only on 7. . 11!- the respondents must s>uarely shoulder the 3lame and responsi3ility o& the a3o$e delay. . The >uestion that arises &or consideration is- whether the non@

consideration o& the claim o& the appellant would $iolate the &undamental ri#hts $ested in him under Articles 12 and 16 o& the Constitution o& India. The answer to the a&oresaid >uery would 3e in the a&&irmati$e- su3/ect to the condition- that the respondents were desirous o& &illin# the $acancy o& Lieutenant 0eneral- when it 3ecame a$aila3le on 1.1. 117. The &actual position depicted in the counter a&&ida$it re$eals- that the respondents indeed were desirous o& &illin# up the said $acancy. In the a3o$e $iew o& the matter- i& the appellant was the senior most ser$in# .a/or 0eneral eli#i3le &or consideration (which he undou3tedly was+- he most de&initely had the &undamental ri#ht o& 3ein# considered a#ainst the a3o$e $acancyand also the &undamental ri#ht o& 3ein# promoted i& he was ad/ud#ed suita3le. =ailin# which- he would 3e depri$ed o& his &undamental ri#ht o& e>uality 3e&ore the law- and e>ual protection o& the laws- e:tended 3y Article 12 o& the Constitution o& India. Ge are o& the $iew- that it was in order to e:tend the 3ene&it o& the &undamental ri#ht enshrined under Article 12 o& the Constitution o& India- that he was allowed e:tension in ser$ice on two occasions- &irstly 3y the 8residential order dated 9. . 11!- and
Page 23

therea&ter- 3y a &urther 8residential order dated "1.5. 11!.

The a3o$e

orders clearly depict- that the a&oresaid e:tension in ser$ice was #ranted to the appellant &or a period o& three months (and &or a &urther period o& one month+- or till the appro$al o& the ACC- whiche$er is earlier. 4y the

a&oresaid orders- the respondents desired to treat the appellant /ustly- so as to ena3le him to ac>uire the honour o& promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- (in case the recommendation made in his &a$our 3y the Selection 4oard was appro$ed 3y the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet+stands a&&irmed. The action o& the authorities in depri$in# the appellant due consideration &or promotion to the ran, o& the Lieutenant 0eneral- would ha$e resulted in $iolation o& his &undamental ri#ht under Article 12 o& the Constitution o& India. Such an action at the hands o& the respondents

would un>uestiona3ly ha$e 3een ar3itrary. Ge are there&ore o& the $iew&irstly- that the order allowin# e:tension in ser$ice o& the appellant &or a period o& three months- dated 9. . 11!- and the order allowin# &urther

e:tension in ser$ice 3y one month to the appellant- dated "1.5. 11!- so as to ena3le his claim to 3e considered &or onward promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- cannot 3e held to 3e in $iolation o& the statutory pro$isions. 'ule 16A o& the Army 'ules- postulates e:tension in ser$ice- i& the e:i#encies o& ser$ice so re>uire. The said parameter must ha$e 3een duly ta,en into consideration when the 8residential Orders dated 9. . 11! and "1.5. 11! were passed. The respondents ha$e neither re$o,ed- nor sou#ht re$ocation o& the a3o$e orders. There&ore- it does not lie in the
Page 24

mouth o& the respondents to >uestion the $eracity o& the a3o$e orders. The a3o$e orders were passed to ensure due consideration o& the appellant*s claim &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. Githout re/ectin# the a3o$e claim on merits- the appellant was depri$ed o& promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral. 4esides the a3o$e- we are also o& the considered $iew- that consideration o& the promotional claim o& the senior most eli#i3le o&&icer- would also &all in the parameters o& the rule pro$idin# &or e:tensioni& the e:i#encies o& ser$ice so re>uire. It would 3e a sad day i& the armed &orces decline to #i$e e&&ect to the le#itimate e:pectations o& the hi#hest ran,ed armed &orces personnel. Specially when- 3lame &or delay in such

consideration- rests s>uarely on the shoulders o& the authorities themsel$es. This would lead to indi$idual resentment- 3itterness-

displeasure and indi#nation. This could also undou3tedly lead to- outra#e at the hi#hest le$el o& the armed &orces. Surely- e:tension o& ser$ice- &or the purpose #ranted to the appellant- would most de&initely &all within the realm o& 'ule 16A o& the Army 'ules- unless o& course- indi$idual resentment- 3itterness- displeasure and indi#nation- o& army personnel at the hi#hest le$el is o& no concern to the authorities. Or alternati$ely- the authorities would li,e to ris, outra#e at the hi#hest le$el- rather than doin# /ustice to a deser$in# o&&icer. 'eliance on 'ule 16A- to depri$e the

appellant o& promotion- to our mind- is /ust a lame e:cuse. Accordin#lye:tension in ser$ice #ranted to the appellant- &or all intents and purposes-

Page 25

in our considered $iew- will 3e deemed to satis&y the parameters o& e:i#ency o& ser$ice- stipulated in 'ule 16A o& the Army 'ules. ". Ghile dealin# with the issue o& consideration o& the appellant*s claim

&or onward promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- it is necessary &or us to also conclude 3y o3ser$in#- that had the claim o& the appellant not 3een duly considered a#ainst the $acancy &or the post o& Lieutenant 0eneral- which 3ecame a$aila3le with e&&ect &rom 1.1. 117- we would ha$e had to hold- that the action was discriminatory. This 3ecause- o& denial o& due consideration to the appellant- who was the senior most eli#i3le ser$in# .a/or 0eneral- as a#ainst the claim o& others who were /unior to him. And specially when- the respondents desired to &ill up the said

$acancy- and also 3ecause- the $acancy had arisen when the appellant still had 12 months o& remainin# Army ser$ice. Surely it cannot 3e o$er loo,edthat the Selection 4oard had sin#ularly recommended the name o& the appellant &or promotion- out o& a panel o& &our names. In such an

e$entuality- we would ha$e no other alternati$e 3ut to stri,e down the action o& the authorities as 3ein# discriminatory and $iolati$e o& Article 16 o& the Constitution o& India. 2. The deli3erations recorded 3y us hereina3o$e are incomplete-

inasmuch as- we ha$e not answered the pointed o3/ection raised 3y the learned senior counsel &or the respondent nos. 1 and - namely- that an o&&icer is not entitled to promotion durin# the period o& e:tension in ser$ice.
Page 26

=or the instant o3/ection raised at the hands o& the respondents- it is necessary to re&er to the deli3erations o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- and specially para#raphs ! and 9 thereo&. A collecti$e readin# o& the para#raphs ! and 9 re$eals an e:tremely rele$ant o3/ecti$e- namelysituations wherein an o&&icer attains the a#e o& retirement without there 3ein# a $acancy &or his consideration to a hi#her ran,- e$en thou#h he is eli#i3le &or the same. Such an o&&icer who is #ranted e:tension in ser$icecannot claim consideration &or promotion- a#ainst a $acancy which has 3ecome a$aila3le durin# the period o& his e:tension in ser$ice. The a3o$e conclusion drawn 3y us is clearly apparent &rom the para#raph 9 o& the proceedin#s o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet. In &act in the operati$e part o& the proceedin#s recorded in para#raph 11- it has 3een noticed- that .FMe:tensions moti$ated 3y a promotion in the o&&in# durin# the e:tension period cannot 3e allowedMF Ge can deri$e only one

meanin# &rom the a3o$e o3ser$ations- namely- e:tension 3ein# #ranted &or promotion a#ainst a $acancy in the o&&in#. That is to say- retention in

ser$ice- so as to consider an o&&icer &or a $acancy which has not 3ecome a$aila3le prior to his retirement- 3ut is in the o&&in#. The a3o$e reason recorded in the operati$e part o& the proceedin#s o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet- is laudi3le and le#al. Inso&ar as the present contro$ersy is concerned- there is no dou3t whatsoe$er- that a clear $acancy a#ainst the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral 3ecame a$aila3le with e&&ect &rom 1.1. 117. At that /uncture- the appellant had 12 months o&
Page 27

ser$ice remainin#. It is not as i& the $acancy came into e:istence a&ter the appellant had reached the a#e o& retirement on superannuation. The

present case is there&ore- not co$ered 3y the technical plea can$assed at the hands o& the learned senior counsel &or the respondents. The denial o& promotion to the appellant mainly &or the reason- that the appellant was on e:tension in ser$ice- to our mind- is unsustaina3le 3esides 3ein# ar3itraryspecially in the li#ht o& the &act- that the $acancy &or which the appellant was clamourin# consideration- 3ecame a$aila3le- well 3e&ore the date o& his retirement on superannuation. Ge ha$e- there&ore- no hesitation in re/ectin# the 3asis on which the claim o& the appellant &or onward promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral was declined- 3y the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet. 5. In $iew o& the &act- that we ha$e &ound the order o& re/ection o& the

appellant*s claim &or promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral- on the #round that he was on e:tended ser$ice to 3e in$alid- we here3y set aside the operati$e part o& the order o& the Appointments Committee o& the Ca3inet. It is also apparent- that the Selection 4oard had recommended the promotion o& the appellant on the 3asis o& his record o& ser$ice- past per&ormance- >ualities o& leadership- as well as- $ision- out o& a panel o& &our names. In its deli3erations the Appointments Committee o& the

Ca3inet- did not record any reason to ne#ate the a&oresaid inter&erencerelatin# to the merit and suita3ility o& the appellant. Ge are there&ore o& the $iew- that the appellant deser$es promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant
Page 28

0eneral- &rom the date due to him. Ordered accordin#ly. On account o& his promotion to the post o& Lieutenant 0eneral- the appellant would also 3e entitled to continuation in ser$ice till the a#e o& retirement on superannuation stipulated &or Lieutenant 0enerals- i.e.- till his ha$in# attained the a#e o& 61 years. As such- the appellant shall 3e deemed to ha$e 3een in ser$ice a#ainst the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral till !. . 119. 5eedless to mention- that the appellant would 3e entitled to all monetary 3ene&its which would ha$e 3een due to him- on account o& his promotion to the ran, o& Lieutenant 0eneral till his retirement on superannuation- as also- to re$ised retiral 3ene&its which would ha$e accrued to him on account o& such promotion. The a3o$e monetary 3ene&its shall 3e released to the appellant within three months &rom the date a certi&ied copy o& this order 3ecomes a$aila3le with the respondents. 6. Allowed in the a&oresaid terms.

M..MMMMMMMMMMM.H. (A.I. 8atnai,+

M..MMMMMMMMMMM.H. (Ha#dish Sin#h Ihehar+ 5ew %elhiJ Hanuary 9- 112.

Page 29