Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The respondents in the affidavit in opposition contended that when the appellant was permitted to change the trade, he had given an undertaking that he would not claim any benefit of his previous service in the trade of clerk. It was submitted that when remustering is permitted from a lower group to a higher group, such a person is not entitled to get credit for his service in the lower group while reckoning his seniority in the higher group. It was pointed out that the appellant belonged to group III when he was remustered and on remustering he was placed in group II and therefore, he was not entitled to get credit for his service in the lower group for adjusting his seniority in the higher group. It was stated that the appellant was remustered on July 1, 1961 and was restored to the rank of Corporal on June 1, 1963. He was promoted to the rank of Sergeant on November 1, 1969. It was also contended that in view of the instructions contained in the Communication RD/600 dated November 20, 1959, the appellant was not entitled to promotion as Flight Sergeant until he completed a total period of 12 years of service or 4 years service as Sergeant which in the case of appellant would be as July 1, 1973 or November 1, 1973 respectively.

3. The High Court held that in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 265 unless a specific provision is made for giving benefit of service in the former trade for reckoning seniority in remustered higher group, the same is not available. It was further held that the 2 appellant was not entitled to get credit for any portion of his service in the earlier trade for adjusting his seniority in the remustered trade, more so because before remustering he was in Group III while on remustering he was brought to Group II and two trades were not alike. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant that 3 his case would be covered by paragraph 282 holding that it covers the cases of promotion of direct entrants to a particular trade and governs the cases of Airmen who are mustered in particular trade and were to be promoted in the same trade. The claim advanced by the appellant for promotion relying upon communication No. HO/40653/56/PA-III dated September 10, 1970 was rejected holding that it applies to the case of future promotion in Group I so as to give full benefit of period of service in Group II as well as the period spent in the course for remustering in Group II and as the appellant was originally mustered in a trade in Group III and later on remustered in Group II he was not entitled to the benefit of it. Accordingly, the High Court rejected his writ petition. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(a) Promotion to the rank of Corporal will be on the basis of total length of service or 3 years as Leading Aircraft hand in the remustered trade whichever is earlier as per AFI. 12/S/48.
(b) Corporals who are remustered will be restored to their former rank on attaining LAC classification.
(c) Promotion beyond the rank of Corporal will be based on the requisite length of service in a particular rank and not on the total length of service.

The appellant attained Leading Aircraft Classification ('LAC' for short) in the remustered trade on June 1, 1963 and thereupon he was restored to the rank of Corporal in the remustered trade effective from June 2, 1963. He was promoted as Sergeant on November 1969.

8. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the service of the appellant rendered before his remustering must and ought to be taken into account for the purpose of determining his seniority and therefore, he would become eligible for promotion as JWO in September, 1970. We were at a loss to understand how the appellant arrived at this date and no light was shed on it but that is not material.

9. The first question therefore is: whether the respondents committed any error in assigning July 1, 1973 as the date on which the appellant wou'd become eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of JWO ? According to the appellant in view of para 265 of the Regulations for the Air Force issued by the Government, on remustering he is entitled to either whole or half of the service in the former trade. Para 265 provides for retention of rank on remustering for reasons other than inefficiency and misconduct or medical unfitness. Sub-para of para 265 provides that on remustering those who have attained Leading Aircraftman will be allowed to count their past service towards promotion in the remustered trade as therein provided, viz, if the remustering is to an allied trade in the same group the whole of their former service as Leading Aircraftman in that group and where remustering is to an allied trade in a higher group one half of their service as Leading Aircraftman in the former trade will be admissible for determining seniority and for promotion in the remustered trade. The appellant presumably relied on the second condition and thereby seeks half of his service as Leading Air- craftman which position he acquired in the remustered trade on June 1, 1963. The High Court declined to accept this contention on two grounds: (i) that compared to Clerk-cum-Pay Accountant, AFSO is not an allied trade and (ii) the remustering was from Group III to Group II, and therefore, the case of the appellant would neither be covered by eligibility criterion I nor eligibility criterion 2. A bare perusal of the relevant clauses of Para 265, would convincingly establish that the view taken by the High Court appears to be in consonance with the relevant provisions.