Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Friday, April 16, 2010

A legal blast from the past !

Some undercurrents between military and civil staff, especially at the officer level, in mixed organisations, are actually not a new phenomenon as universally perceived. Last few years have seen officers litigating on status and control issues in areas where both civilian and military officers man key positions. But this, as stated above, is not new. Sample the below pearls from a Supreme Court judgement of the year 1979 (1980 AIR 452) rendered by Justice Krishna Iyer in his inimitable style. The dispute was between direct entry Class-I officers of the Survey of India who resented the seniority granted to Commissioned officers of the Corps of Engineers over them :-

“These two sister appeals have gained access to this Court by certificate under Article 133 and project a 'service dispute' between the Army and civilian wings (both engineers) of the Survey of India. The constitutional missiles used, with success, in the encounter in the High Court by the 'civilians' to shoot down the ‘military men’s' preferential claims under the relevant service rules, are Articles 14 and 16. And here, in this Court, the Army Wing is fighting back to repulse the civilian wing by defusing the war-head of these two fundamental rights. Military imagery vivifies the litigative havoc when sectors of our public services go to battle against each other, though there is so much else to wage war against in the service of the people.”

And the question of law was answered in the following manner :

"Now we come to the bitter bone of contention between the parties. Why should the 50% of military recruits be given a special weightage ? Should not all entrants into the DSS (Deputy Superintending Surveyor) be treated alike without being afforded a handicap in the race? We see no difficulty in upholding this weightage, once we accept the reality that the military portion of the Survey is a compelling factor for national defence. We hold, on a study of the materials already adverted to, that sans they army engineers the Survey of India will become a functional failure in discharging its paramount duties in times of war and in spells of peace, defence spreads beyond hot war or cold war and sustains the sense of security by a state of ever readiness. There is enough literature to establish that the work done by the army wing of the Survey is far too important to be played with and such work is best done by that wing. The military recruits, as has been already observed, are commissioned officers with 3 to 6 years of service. They have a certain salary scale and period of service when they are baptised into the Survey of India. Giving due weight to these factors, Rule 5 lays down the criteria for seniority as between the military sector of recruits and the civilian counter-parts. What needs to be appreciated is that for the very efficiency of the Survey of India, a substantial army element is structurally essential. Army engineers are invited into this Service not because this department historically belonged to the Defence Forces but because it cannot minister to one of the major objectives of its creation if it does not have engineers with military training, aptitude, courage, discipline and dare-devilry in hours of crisis. The necessity of the Survey, not opportunity to the armymen, has determined the need to attract and, therefore, to allot a quota in the upper echelons, viz., Class I, for military engineers. This, in turn, has desiderated the offer of reasonable terms and conditions for army men to join the Survey of India. The military engineers belong to the Corps of Engineers. They are commissioned officers with service of 3 to 6 years before coming into the Survey which needs, not raw engineers, but men with some experience. They have prospects and scales of pay in the Defence Department. Why should they look at the Survey if on entry they are to lose their commissioned service and begin the rat race with civilian freshers ? Why should they suffer pay cut by walking into the Survey of India? It is, therefore, fairly intelligible and basically equitable to allow military engineers credit for commissioned service and protection of already earned higher salaries. The reasoning is simple. The functional compulsions of the Survey of India require army engineers to be inducted, say half its Class I strength. These engineering officers have to possess some years of experience. How, then, can they be attracted into the Survey except by assuring them what they were enjoying in their existing service, viz., credit for the years under commission in reckoning seniority and fitment of their salary at a point in the scale of Class I officers so that, by way of personal pay or otherwise, a cut may be obviated. This is not discrimination or favoured treatment but justice to those whom, of necessity, you want and must, therefore, pay what they were being paid in the Army and give service credit for the years on commission because you need men with specified years of commissioned service. To equate them with unequal civilian freshers is precisely the Procrustean exercise which is unconstitutional equality anathematised by Article 14."

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep
The judgement is quite fair.However the service officers in mixed organisations are claiming much more seniority than their total commissioned service.
S N GUPTA

JB Singh said...

Very incisive. Officers on permanent deputation to joint/mixed organisations should be allowed the initial service/seniority protection benefit but, in my opinion, should not be then allowed to flip-flop between the rules of army and the mixed organisation they serve in depending upon what suits them best at a particular instant of time.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous @624

A) How so? Could you elaborate?

B) You wake up early!

Anonymous said...

that why in survey of india more then 40 major generals are there. even some are nearly 50 years of age.

Anonymous said...

Dear Majorsaheb, it is far more worst in case of JCOs, when after serving more than 21 years in the Military service and serving in difficult terrain stayed far away from their families and kith and kins for the sake of their motherland. They attain the middle management level ranks i.e. JCOs after passing requisite army tests stipulated for these promotions, they are placed at par with the civilian candidates who join at the age of 18-28 years a Group C or Group D posts alongwith them. Is it not violation of Article 14 of the Cosntitution of India. I shall be glad and grateful if our beloved Major sahab look into this case legally and can do something to restore the dignity of these poor and hungry lot of JCOs/Havildars. thanking you sir,

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is absolutely incorrect that agencies like CISF, etc, are reemploying Nb Subs and Subs as ASI and SI, when the actual equation, by pay scale is SI, and Inspector, respectively.

Is this not violative of Article 14?

Even Army Havildars, who should be placed as ASI's in CPO and Police, are being placed one step lower!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Yes, it is absolutely incorrect that agencies like CISF, etc, are reemploying Nb Subs and Subs as ASI and SI, when the actual equation, by pay scale is SI, and Inspector, respectively.

Is this not violative of Article 14?

Even Army Havildars, who should be placed as ASI's in CPO and Police, are being placed one step lower!


ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. BUT WHO SHOULD TAKE A STAND? THE AGs BRANCH AND THE SERVICE HQs.
BUT
THEY DON'T SINCE THE OFFICERS IN UNIFORM ARE JUST NOT BOTHERED TILL THEY RETIRE AND COME OUT INTO THE BIG BAD WORLD.
BY THEN THE ROT HAS SET IN

FIGHTER said...

this is only one side of the story .
in the mixed organisation no one question the higher salary or perks of the army officers .it is only the status or equavalency which comes under question .
there is a notion among army officers that they are always senior then civilians , that hurts .and this attitude is main crux of the problem .

any way maj navdeep has taken up a case of equavaleny in court . let us see what happens

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@Fighter.

I have not taken any issue of equivalence to Court. The Court is examining a very different aspect.

I agree with you that there are problems on both sides of the fence which need to be ironed out in the best interest of good governance.

Anonymous said...

IN THE LAST ONE YEAR I HAVE READ HUNDREDS OF THESE RANTS ON THIS BLOG FROM OFFICERS BOTH SERVING AND RETIRED, ABOUT HOW THE IAS LOT HAVE CHEATED THEM OF EQUIVALENCE, SENIORITY ETC ETC.

DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY HAVE A WORKABLE SOLUTION? I DONT THINK SO, I DONT THINK MAJ NAVDEEP HAS EITHER.

THERE ARE TOO MANY GLARING ISSUES EASILY OBVIOUS TO EVEN THE MOST UN-INFORMED; BUT NO ONE IN POWER I.E THE BUREAUCRATS OR THE POLITICIANS HAVE THE INCLINATION O SET MATTERS RIGHT.
THEREFORE, THIS IS YOUR LOT GENTLEMEN AND PLEASE LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT. ELSE APPROACH THE COURTS.

I THINK I AM CONSOLING MYSELF IN THIS WAY

Harry said...

@ Maj Navdeep

Sir,

You replied to fighter... "I have not taken any issue of equivalence to Court. The Court is examining a very different aspect."

Could you plsease elaborate what is being talked about here?

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

@ Fighter

Mixed organization has got some advantage also. The induction of army officers in these organization brings the element of discipline, just do it type attitude and good managerial skills. However the pay difference( even though it is against the directive principles of state policy- of equal work and equal pay) and the inflated and superficial egos from the both side are hurting these organizations in big way. Army officers thinks they are more superior to their civilian counter part by virtue of their training, quality of social life, fighter attitude etc whereas civilian thinks they are more professionally qualified by virtue of their education and qualification as many of them are the products of top engg colleges(where as majority of army officers are the product of CME completing their engg course in three years that too half day study-taking beer and drinks after the class).

Amit

Kaps said...

Wonderful to see how a judgement is written. Logical, succinct and full of great simple and often ignored (by others) facts.

It is true that it takes to tango. Can't fault one side of the coin alone for any misgivings. If their is bad blood between two parties, it is difficult to think that it is handiwork of just one party.

Anonymous said...

I want to thank Maj Navdeep for taking the burning issue of equivalency of Civilian Officers vs Army Officers in a mixed organisation and also thank him for taking a holistic view. I am from a mixed organisation and i fully understand the sensitivity of imp of Army Officers vis a vis Civilian Officers. In my view, personally no Army Officers are against the Civilian Officers and they are fully recognizing the talent of a civilian officer if they are more talented than them and equally, civilian officers are also recognizing the talent in the Army, the problem starts when a superseded Lt Col having no knowledge starts equating himself to a Brig or Maj Gen of his batch who have already become a Maj Gen Or Brig just because of his seniority and starts to enforce this on his civilian counterparts. Maj Navdeep, please comment on this as you are also now experiencing the environment of a mixed society.

Anonymous said...

@Amit:

First of all, the CME Engineering degree is a first class engineering degree, which is attained after 3 years of BSc studies, and 3 Years of BTech studies, so 6 years of study!

Many civilian engineering officers come from very dubious no name engineering colleges. Almost ZERO come from top rung (IIT/BITS/GCE/NIT/REC) etc. A large number are promotee diploma engineers, with no degree at all.

As to amount of time in class, all colleges follow a similar schedule, and I havent heard of any that go all day long.

Finally, "taking beer" etc. Bizarre judgement, and completely unjustified. Im a (civilian/non-govt) engineer, and I can tell you that I took plenty of beer in college, and am none the worse for it (except for a slight stomach)!

Jeet Hormuz said...

Anon @ 1:51 am

Well said Sir, and LOL @ the 'slight stomach' :)

RAJKUMAR said...

I THINK PROTECTION OF THE PAY AND PERKS WHENEVER ANY ARMY OFFR GOES OUTSIDE ARMY , IS A CLOSED ISSUE BY NOW AND NO ONE QUESTION THIS , THE ONLY PROBLEM REMAINS IS THAT OF EQUALENCY , WHICH NEEDS TO BE SORTED OUT . THE ONLY WORKABLE SOLUTION SEEMS BY NOW IS THAT LET SE OR COL DO NOT COME IN EACH OTHERS WAY I.E. LET THEM NOT BE POSTED IN DIRECT CHAIN OF COMMAND .
GIVING ENDLESS ARGUMENTS , FIGHTING IN COURTS ETC , ARE JUST WASTAGE OF TIME .

AND IT SEEMS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME THAT CONTROL OF MIXED ORGANISATION WILL SLIP OUT OF HANDS ARMY OFFICERS . AND RIGHTFULLY TOO , BY NOW ALL MIXED ORGANISATIONS HAVE THEIR OWN TRAINED CADRES .

MORE OR LESS THIS WAS SITUATION IN CPO,S TILL FEW YEARS BACK .AT PRESENT MOST OF CPO,S HAVE THEIR OWN CADRE UP TO THE TOP .

FIGHTER said...

maj navdeep
pl ref ur comments in reply to fighter .
can u pl elaborate what may be workable solution .

what can be done from army offr side and what can be done from civillians side to have win win situation for both sides .

Anonymous said...

maj navdeep
Great to get news and views on the subject. The matter of Rank pay in litigation will have a follow on for MSP also, as Sixth pay commission spirit is still missing in latest notification.
regards.
Xp