Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
17. From the facts and contentions on behalf of the petitioner, we note that the petitioner had worked in the Army as a Short Service Commissioned Officer from April 29, 1963 to December 06, 1970, a period of slightly more than 7 years. On December 07, 1970 he joined GREF under Border Road Organization on the post of Executive Engineer where he worked till September 30, 1972. We may only note here that there is no averment in the petition before the Tribunal nor in the writ petition wherein the petitioner had stated that the service in GREF was also a Short Service Commission. It is also necessary to point out that no Rule/Regulation has been shown to us that for the purpose of counting service in CPWD the service in GREF for the purpose of seniority shall be taken into consideration. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (1983) 3 SCC 401 R.Viswan v. Union of India. In the R.Viswan's case (supra) the Supreme Court was concerned with two notifications dated September 23, 1960 issued by the Government of India one under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 4 of the Army Act making various provisions of the Act including Section 21 applicable and the second one under Section 21, 102(4) and 191 of the Army Act making various provisions of the Army Rules including Rules 19 to 21 applicable to the members of GREF. The contention on behalf of the petitioner was that Section 21 of the Army Act was unconstitutional and void so also Rules 19 to 21 of the Army Rules since under Article 33 of the Constitution of India, Parliament could not leave it to the Central Government to determine the extent of restrictions or abrogation of the Fundamental Rights. The other contention was that GREF was not a force raised and maintained under the Authority of the Central Government and the notifications issued by the Govt. of India were ultra virus to the powers of the Central Govt. The petitioners also urged that in any event the application of Section 21 of the Army Act read with Rules 19 to 21 of the Army Rules to members of GREF was unconstitutional since the members of the GREF were not members of the Armed Forces or the Forces charged with maintenance of public order within the meaning of Article 33 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has inter alia held that GREF is a force organized on Army pattern with units and sub-units which reads as under:-
"The GREF is a Force organised on Army pattern with units and sub units and rank structure, and raised and maintained under the authority of the Central Government. The Central Government therefore had power under sub-sections 91) and (4) of Section 4 to issue SRO No.329 applying some of the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 to GREF and directing by what of the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 to GREF and directing by what authority the jurisdiction, powers and duties incident to the operation of those provisions shall be exercised or performed in respect of GREF.
(Para 8) The history, composition, administration, organization and role of GREF clearly show that GREF is an integral part of the Armed Forces and the members of GREF can legitimately be said to be members of the Armed Forces within the meaning of Article 33.(Para 9 and 10) The mere fact that the members of the GREF are described as civilian employees and they have their own special rules of recruitment and are governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is not determinative of the question whether they are members of the Armed Forces. It is also immaterial if their terms and conditions are comparable with those in the regular Army. (Para 10 and 11) Thus the members of GREF answer the description of "members of the Armed Forces"
Mr.V.Raghvan Nair joined GREF on deputation for 3 years. After that he was reverted back to the State service. Mr.V.Raghvan Nair was given 3 advance increments which were sought to be withdrawn. One of the contentions was that the service in GREF is an active service or not. The High Court allowed the writ petition by holding the GREF service as an active military service on the ground that GREF personnel are governed by the Army Act.