# t S.C.R. 492 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2017] 1 S.C.R. 492
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017-01-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appea!No.3798 of2015
- **Bench:** A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/t-s-c-r-492-union-of-india-and-ors-v-k-p-singh-and-anr-31780
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Armed Forces - Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme
(DACP) - Applicability of. to medical doctors engaged as
Commissioned Officers in Army Medical Crops-AMC Cadre -
Doctors of AMC, with more than 20 years of commissioned/GroupA Gaze/led service - Applications by doctors seeking DACP before
the Armed Forces Tribunal - Tribunal allowed the applications
relying on the decision dated 18'" July 2011 in the Original
Application seeking similar relief. wherein the tribunal had held
that there was no denial that the DACP Scheme is equally applicable
to AMC Cadre and had directed the department ta.issue instructions
for implementation of the DACP.Scheme - On appeal, held: Correct
factual position was not brought to the notice of the tribunal and
also this Court, in the Appeal against the decision of the tribunal -
However, considering the far reaching financial and structural
ramifications for the Defence Forces and in larger public interest,
it is essential to examine the applicability of DACP Scheme to
Commissioned Officers of Armed Forces - The fact that no express
denial was stated in the pleadings filed before the tribunal cannot
be construed as admission of the Department to extend DACP even
to doctors working in AMC Cadre - If DACP Scheme is extended to
doctors working in AMC Cadre, it would result in an anomalous
situation - Since the other Commissioned Officers working on the
same rank would not be enlitled for DACP considering the service
conditions of the Commissioned Officers governed by respective
Acts - Further, the 6'" Pay Commission has not expressly
recommended applieation of DACP Scheme to Commissioned
Officers in AMC Cadre - Direction to issue instructions for the
implementation of DACP scheme would have lo be construed to
mean that the authorities must act in accordance with lmv and extend
DACP scheme even to the Commissioned Officers of AMC Cadre, if
permissible in law and nothing more - Thus, the respective OAs
remanded to tribunal for reconsideration afresh.
492
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
Disposing of the appeals and writ petition, the Court
HELD: t.t On a fair reading of the decision in *Co/. Sanjeev
Sehgal passed by t.he Tribunal dated t8" July 2011, all that it
records is that there was no denial that the Dynamic Assured
Career Progression Scheme (DACP) is equally applicable to AMC
Cadre. Further, the Scheme has already been implemented in
civil departments except in the Armed Forces. On that basis, the
tribunal issued a direction to the Department to issue instructions
for implementation of the DACP Scheme in the light of the Office
Memorandum dated 29'' October 2008 issued by the Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, dated ts•• November 2008 issued by
the Ministry of Finance and dated 27'' November 2008 issued by
the Ministry of Defence. [Para 111 [513-A-CJ
t.2 In that, the correct factual position was not brought to
the notice of the tribunal and also this Court, in the Civil Appeal
filed before this Court against the decision of the tribunal.
Nevertheless, considering the far reaching financial and structural
ramifications for the Defence Forces and in larger public interest,
it is essential to examine the core issue about the applicability of
DACP Scheme to Commissioned Officers of Armed Forces. The
Commissioned Officers are governed by Army Instructions
74/t976. Their promotion in AMC Cadre up to the rank of Captain,
Major and Lt. Col. are by time scale subject to meeting the
prescribed criteria and substantive promotion to the ranks of
Colonel, Brigadier, Major General and Lieutenant General is by
selection. As per para 10 of Army Instructions 74/1976, officers
granted permanent commission in the Army Medical Corps
receive pay and allowances at the rates laid down in Pay and
Allowances Regulations for officers of the Army, as amended from
time to time by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in
consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance.
On the other

## Text

_Characters 0–39,541 of 62,400. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39541 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(2017] t S.C.R. 492
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
(Civil Appea!No.3798 of2015)
JANUARY 12, 2017
[A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.)
Armed Forces - Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme
(DACP) - Applicability of. to medical doctors engaged as
Commissioned Officers in Army Medical Crops-AMC Cadre -
Doctors of AMC, with more than 20 years of commissioned/GroupA Gaze/led service - Applications by doctors seeking DACP before
the Armed Forces Tribunal - Tribunal allowed the applications
relying on the decision dated 18'" July 2011 in the Original
Application seeking similar relief. wherein the tribunal had held
that there was no denial that the DACP Scheme is equally applicable
to AMC Cadre and had directed the department ta.issue instructions
for implementation of the DACP.Scheme - On appeal, held: Correct
factual position was not brought to the notice of the tribunal and
also this Court, in the Appeal against the decision of the tribunal -
However, considering the far reaching financial and structural
ramifications for the Defence Forces and in larger public interest,
it is essential to examine the applicability of DACP Scheme to
Commissioned Officers of Armed Forces - The fact that no express
denial was stated in the pleadings filed before the tribunal cannot
be construed as admission of the Department to extend DACP even
to doctors working in AMC Cadre - If DACP Scheme is extended to
doctors working in AMC Cadre, it would result in an anomalous
situation - Since the other Commissioned Officers working on the
same rank would not be enlitled for DACP considering the service
conditions of the Commissioned Officers governed by respective
Acts - Further, the 6'" Pay Commission has not expressly
recommended applieation of DACP Scheme to Commissioned
Officers in AMC Cadre - Direction to issue instructions for the
implementation of DACP scheme would have lo be construed to
mean that the authorities must act in accordance with lmv and extend
DACP scheme even to the Commissioned Officers of AMC Cadre, if
permissible in law and nothing more - Thus, the respective OAs
remanded to tribunal for reconsideration afresh.
492
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
Disposing of the appeals and writ petition, the Court
HELD: t.t On a fair reading of the decision in *Co/. Sanjeev
Sehgal passed by t.he Tribunal dated t8" July 2011, all that it
records is that there was no denial that the Dynamic Assured
Career Progression Scheme (DACP) is equally applicable to AMC
Cadre. Further, the Scheme has already been implemented in
civil departments except in the Armed Forces. On that basis, the
tribunal issued a direction to the Department to issue instructions
for implementation of the DACP Scheme in the light of the Office
Memorandum dated 29'' October 2008 issued by the Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, dated ts•• November 2008 issued by
the Ministry of Finance and dated 27'' November 2008 issued by
the Ministry of Defence. [Para 111 [513-A-CJ
t.2 In that, the correct factual position was not brought to
the notice of the tribunal and also this Court, in the Civil Appeal
filed before this Court against the decision of the tribunal.
Nevertheless, considering the far reaching financial and structural
ramifications for the Defence Forces and in larger public interest,
it is essential to examine the core issue about the applicability of
DACP Scheme to Commissioned Officers of Armed Forces. The
Commissioned Officers are governed by Army Instructions
74/t976. Their promotion in AMC Cadre up to the rank of Captain,
Major and Lt. Col. are by time scale subject to meeting the
prescribed criteria and substantive promotion to the ranks of
Colonel, Brigadier, Major General and Lieutenant General is by
selection. As per para 10 of Army Instructions 74/1976, officers
granted permanent commission in the Army Medical Corps
receive pay and allowances at the rates laid down in Pay and
Allowances Regulations for officers of the Army, as amended from
time to time by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in
consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance.
On the other hand, the Doctors serving in Ministry of Defence
are categorized as civilian medical doctors. In so far as civilian
medical doctors are concerned, the Government has already
extended DACP Scheme in terms of Circular issued by the
Ministry of Defence dated ts•• January 2009. The fact that no
express denial was stated in the plea!lings filed before the tribunal
cannot be construed as admission of the Department to extend
493
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
494
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S.C.R.
DACP even to doctors working in AMC Cadre. If DACP Scheme
is extended to doctors working in AMC Cadre, it would result in
an anomalous situation. For, other Commissioned Officers
working on the same rank would not be entitled for DACP
. considering the service conditions of the Commissioned Officers
who are governed by the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957
and the Air Force Act, 1950 as the case may be. A distinction has
always been made between AMC Cadre and other Medical
Services in the Ministry of Defence. Even the previons Pay
Commission reports maintained that distinction while making
recommendations, as has been done by the 6th Pay Commission.
The 6'h Pay Commission has not expressly recommended
application of DACP Scheme to Commissioned Officers in AMC
Cadre. While it has limited that recommendation to civilian
employees it has not done so to doctors generally. [Para 12) [513E; 514-E-F, H; 515-A-F)
1.3 The observation made in Col. S(lnjeev Se/ig(I/ case would
have to be construed in the context of the final direction issued
to the Department. The authorities were directed to issue
instructions for the implementation of DACP scheme in the light
of Annexures attached with the Original Application. That
direction would have to be construed to mean that the authorities
must act in accordance with law and extend DACP scheme even
to the Commissioned Officers of AMC Cadre, if permissible in
law. No more and no less. Therefore, this Court whilst dismissing
the Civil Appeal on 23" September 2011 observed that no
substantial question of law of general/public importance arose
for consideration. That decision cannot be given an expansive
meaning so as to be read that de-hors the legal position, DACP
scheme be extended even to doctors working as Commissioned
Officers in AMC Cadre. Thus, understood, it must follow that
the issues raised in the instant appeals by the Government and
in particular by the Ministry of Defence are not concluded nor
have they attained finality. On this finding, it may not be necessary
to dilate on the possibility of an inaccurate reply affidavit having
been filed before the tribunal to oppose the Original Application
of Col. S(lnjeev Se/ig(I/ or for that matter the circumstances in
which the appropriate Authority was inclined to implement DACP
scheme qua Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces. It is
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
possible that office note in that behalf was prepared on an
erroneous assumption that the Court has directed that the DACP
scheme be implemented even in the case of doctors working as
Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces. However, it is left open
to the department to proceed against the concerned officers who
were responsible for creating such confusion and for filing an
inaccurate affidavit and for not bringing on record entire material
relevant for deciding the principal question. [Para 13) [515-G-H;
516-A-D)
1.4 The appellants have relied on the Office Memorandum
dated 29" August, 2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance and
the resolution issued by the Ministry of Defence dated 30'' August,
2008. The former Office Memorandum including the Office Noting
on the file at different levels, prima facie, indicates that there
was a clear exclusion of applicability of DACP Scheme to Doctors
working as Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. Since the
tribunal has not either in the case of Col. Stmjeev Seliga/ case or
in the impugned decision examined all these aspects on its merits,
it is deemed appropriate to relegate the parties before the tribunal
for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh without being
influenced by the observations made in the order passed in case
of Col. Sanjeev Seliga/ case or the dismissal of appeal against that
decision by this Court on 23'' September, 2011. It is said so
because the direction issued by the tribunal in the case of Col.
Sanjeev Seliga/ to the Department for issuing instructions was
obviously to decide the issue under consideration in accordance
with law, on the question of applicability of DACP Scheme even
to the Doctors working as Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre.
The said controversy has far-reaching structural ramifications to
theArmed Forces besides financial implications and the possibility
of a discrimination within the cadre. This requires deeper
consideration. For that reason, this Court during the pendency
of these appeals permitted the appropriate authority to examine
the entire matter and take a necessary decision. Pursuant to that
liberty, the Deputy Secretary (Medical) of the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, has informed of the decision of the
Government vide communication dated 13" January, 2016 to the
Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC). It would be open
to tbe respondents in the appeals to question the correctness
495
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
496
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 1 S.C.R.
thereof in the remanded proceedings. This .would provide an
opportunity .to bot.h sides to pursue their pleas and also facilitate
the tr.ibunal to examine the correctness of the position and answer
th~,matters in issue appropriately. [Para 14] (516-F-G; 517-A-E]
1.5 The grievance of the respondents in the appeals that
the appellants should not be permitted to rely on new documents
which.were not part of the record before the tribunal or for that
matter incorrect declaration and affidavit filed in support of the
present appeals is not accepted. Instead, liberty is given to both
sides to file further pleadings and place on record any further
documents before the tribunal. (Para 15] [517-G]
1.6 The appellants must file a comprehensive affidavit
accompanied by all the relevant documents on which they would
like to place reliance to buttress the stand as to why DACP
Scheme cannot be extended to Doctors engaged as
Commissioned Officers in AMC Cadre. The respondents (original
applicants) would be free to file a response to that affidavit. [Para
16] (517-H; 518-A]
. 1. 7 The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution are disposed of with liberty to the writ petitioner to
either intervene in the remanded proceedings before the tribunal
or to file a fresh Original Application for the relief claimed by him
in the present writ petition, which can be decided by the tribunal
along with the other remanded original applications. The order(s)
passed by the tribunal in the respective appeals are set aside
and instead the respective Original Applications are remanded
to the tribunal for reconsideration of the entire matter de novo.
[Paras 17, 18] [518-B-D]
Col. Sanjeev Sehgal 0.A. No. 488 of 2011 Armed
Forces Tribunal - referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3 798 of
G
2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2014 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandimandir in Original Application
No. 178 of2014
WITH
H
C.A.No. 3799of2015
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
W. P. (C) No. 957 of2014 .. ·
Maninder Singh, ASG., Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Pradeep Kumar
Yadav, Ashutosh Yadav, Ms. Man ju Sharma Jetley, R. Balasubramania,
Nalin Kohli, Prabhas Bajaj, Amarjeet Singh, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, M.K.
Maroria, B. V. Balaram Das, Dev.endra Singh, Anant K. Vatsya, Apurav
Singhal, Narsingh Narain Rai, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court wap delivered by
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. The respondents in the
aforementioned two appeals and the petitioner in the companion writ
petition served as officers of Army Medical Corps, a Medical Service,
under the Government oflndia, with more than 20 years of commissioned/
Group-A gazette service. The Army Medical Corps is a cadre of Doctors
serving in the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is an organized medical
service of Central Government.
2. The respondents in the two appeals approached the Armed
ForcAs Tribunal at New Delhi, by way of an Original Application
contending that they were entitled to receive Dynamic Assured Career
Prog;·ession as per the DACP Scheme, as approved by the Central
Government. Even the writ petitioner in the companion writ petition has
sought similar relief. He has prayed for a direction against the Central
Government to implement the DACP scheme even in relation to the
medical officers/doctors who are commissioned officers of the Armed
ForcAs.
3. An Original Application seeking sim':~. relief was filed by one
Col. Sanjeev Seltgal' . The same was allowed by the Tribunal vide
order dated 18" July 2011. In that case, the Tribunal had noted the
stand of the department (appellants) that the matter regarding
implementation of DACP scheme qua the doctors in AMC was still
under examination. Further, the appropriate Authority was expected to
take a decision in that behalf after examining the issue in due course.
The Tribunal, however; proceeded to dispose of the said Original
Application in the following terms:
"Heard tlte learned counsel for tlte botlt the parties and
perused the documents including Annexures 1,2 and 3 .
.
' 0.A. No. 488 of 2011 before the Armed Forces Tribunal at Chandigarh
497
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
498
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 1 S.C.R.
There is no denial that the DACP Scheme is equally
applicable to AMC Cadre. The scheme has already been
implemented in several Departments. However. the same
has not been implemented in the Armed Forces for the
reasons bes/ known to them and the matter is hinging
for the last about three years. This is clearly detrimental
tc the interest of the AMC officers. It ought to have
been implemented much earlier by the Ministry of
Defence and the concerned authorities of Armed
Forces.
In the facts and circumstances, the Respondents are
directed lo issue instructions for the implementation of
the DACP Scheme in the light of Annex11res A-I A-2
and A-3 attached with the application within three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the above direction, this application stands
disposed of".
This decision became final consequent to the dismissal of Civil
Appeal filed by the Department before this Court.
4. Relying on the said decision, the Tribunal allowed the two Original
E
Applications filed by the respondents in the aforementioned appeals.
The Tribunal also directed the department to issue instructions for
implementation of the DACP Scheme and by placing the concemed
respondents to the 4'' financial upgradation of grade pay of Rs. I 0,000/
- under the DACP Scheme. The original application filed by the
respondents in C.A. No. 3798 of2015, was allowed by the Armed Forces
F
Tribunal at New Delhi, being 0.A. 178 of 2014, on l 7'h April, 2014.
Similarly, the Original Application No. 108 of2014 filed by the respondents
in C.A. No. 3799of2015 was allowed videorderdated 9m April, 2014.
The department has assailed these orders in the respective appeals.
5. When the present appeals were pending for consideration, the
G
petitioner in companion W.P. No. 957 of2014 approached this Court
praying for the following relief:
H
i.
"Issue a mandamus for direction lo the respondents
thereby to implement the recommendations of 6•• Pay
Commission from the date of issuance of Official
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
499
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Memorandum (OM) dated 29.10.2008 issued by the
A
Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, CHS division, in Army Medical Corps (AMC)
within a specific time;
ii. Pass any such other order(s) as deemed fit and proper
to secure the ends of justice".
B
6. It is an admitted position that the decision of the Armed Forces
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Col. Sanjeev Seliga/ (supra)
was assailed by the appellants by way of Civil Appeal D.No. 14342 of
2013 before this Court. That was, however, summarily dismissed atthe
preliminary hearing stage on 23"' September, 2013 by the Bench presided c
by Justice T.S. Thakur (as he then was). The order reads thus:
"Heard.
Apart from the fact that there is an inordinate delay
of 589 days in the filing of this application for grant of
leave, we see no substantial question of law of general/
public importance arises for our consideration. The
prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and
the application dismissed".
7. Nonetheless the present appeals and writ petition came to be
admilted on 13'" April, 2015 after due consideration, by a Bench of two
learned Judges of which Justice T.S. Thakur (as he then was) was a
member. Further, when the appeals and writ petition were pending and
heard on different dates, the appellants were granted liber!Y to file further
affidavits. Keeping in mind the stand taken by the department, this
Court (presided by Chief Justice T.S.Thakur as he then was) vide order
dated 11lhDecember,2015 permitted the appropriate Authority to revisit
the matter afresh and take a decision as may be advised. Indeed, that
was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the
present proceedings. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, a
formnl decision has been taken at the highest level in the Ministry of
Defence, Government of India which has been communicated to the
Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) vide letter dated 13'"
January, 2016. We deem it apposite to reproduce the said letter in its
entirety inasmuch as the department has reiterated the same stand in
the two appeals as also to oppose the writ petition. The same reads
thus:
D
E
F
G
500
A
B
c
D
E
F
0
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
No. 101112010-D(Medical)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
[2017] I S.C.R.
"Annexure A-3
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011
Dated the 13'' January\ 2016
To,
The Chairman,
Chiefs of Staff Commillee (COSC),
COSC Secretariat,
263D, South Block,
New Delhi.
Subject: Recommendations of the COSC regarding Dynamic
Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme in
respect of Defence Forces Personnel.
Sir,
l am directed to refer to the le lier No. Cl702616tt CPCIVol.
Ill dated 25.8.2015 of the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee
(COSC) 011 the above noted subject, and to say that as
requested in the aforesaid le/ler, the case was given an
opportunity to present the 'Case of the Services for grant of
DACP Scheme to all Defence Forces Officers alongwilh the
Armed Forces Medical Servich (AFMS) Officers before the
H-:m 'ble Raksha Mantri on 08.01.2016. In the presentaiion
made by the COSC, it was stated that ihe DACP Scheme, as
rt'commended by the 6'' Central Pay Commission (CPCJ in
para 3.6 of its report, {s applicable td AFMS doc/ors also.
The COSC also referred to para 12 oflhe Resolution No.Jiii
2008-IC dated 29. 08.2008, wherein, it has been slated that
the DACP &heme for doctors will be extended uplo Senior
·Administrative Grade (SAG) for Medical Doctors having 20
, 'years of regular service, or 7 years of regular service in the
Nun Functional Selec1i01i Grade (NFSGJ of Rs.87001- grade
pay in P B-4 and that all the medical doctors whether belonging
to organized services or holding isolated posts will be covered
by the DACP Scheme.
2. During the .. 'i:ourse of the prese'11tatio11, the COSC was
informed that since separate reco111111e11datio11s were made by
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
the 6'• CPC for Defence Forces Personnel, the recommendation
made in para 3.6 is not applicable to the AFMS doctors as
they are part and parcel of the Defence Forces. The COSC
was also informed that the Resolution dated 29. 08.2008 of
the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure is
applicable only in respect of civilian government employees,
as clearly stated in para 1 of the said Resolution and
therefore, the recommendation made in para 12 thereof is
applicable in respect of civilian doctors and not in respect of
the AFMS doctors.
3. Further, the relevant aspects for grant of DACP to Armed
Forces Medical Services (AFMS) officers, as also for granJ
of same Grade Pay to all Defence Officers, as recommended
by the case have also been considered carefully.
4. Upon such consideration, the first significant aspect which
has clearly emerged is that the DACP is not at all applicable
to Commissioned Officers serving as doctors in AFMS Cadre,
for more than one reason which are set out herein below:
(i) · As per existing Govt. orders commissioned officers
serving as doctors belonging to AFMS constitute a separate
class in themselves. They have a separate treatment with regard
to recruitment procedure, appointment, terms and conditions
of their employment including promotions, pay structure etc.
as contained in Al 7411976 issued by the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence. Being commissioned officers they are
employed in the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the
Indian Navy, i.e., Army, Navy & Air Force. They are unlike
other civilian doctors serving in Directorate General of Armed
Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS), who do not become
commissioned officers and for whom separate Govt. orders
exist regarding their terms and conditions of service.
(ii) Similarly, the procedure of appointment, terms and
conditions of employmenl including promotions, pay structure
etc. for other civilian doctors appointed in other Departments/
Ministries of the Govt. of India are entirely di.fferell/. These
civilian doctors form/constitute a separate class .. Their service
conditions etc. are dealt with by the respective Ministries like
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Ministry of Railways,
Ministry of Home Affairs in cases of doctors in Para Military
501
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
502
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S.C.R.
Forces like Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police
Force etc. and are governed by CCS Rules etc.
(iii) Therefore, doctors who are commissioned officers
in AFMS in the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the
Indian Navy form a separate class. The successive Central
Pay Commissions have also dealt with them separately, in the
recommendations made by them to Govt. of India. The
recommendations are also made by the Central Pay
Commissions providing separately for the civilian doctors
dealt with by other Ministries/Departments such as Ministry
of Health & FIV. Ministry of Railways, etc.
(iv) In the present case, the doctors constituting AFMS
who are Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army, the Indian
Afr Force and the Indian Nal'e are to be governed by the
resolution/decision taken by the Ministry of Defence, Govt.
of India on 30.08.2008 and not by the resolution/decision
dated 29.08.2008 by the Ministry of Finance dealing with all
civilian Gover11111e111 servants including doctors who are no/
commissioned officers in the Indian Army, rhe Indian Air Force
and the Indian Navy.
(v)
The ex isling sanctioned hierarchy of promotion for
doctors joining the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and
the Indian Navy as commissioned officers is as under:
(a) Captain/Flight Lieutenanr/Lieu/enant
(b) Major/Squadron Leader/Lieutenant Commander
-•
(c) Lieu/enant Colonel/Wing Commander/Commander
(d) Colonel/Group Captain/Captain(Navy)
(e) Brigadier/Air Commodore!Commodore(Navy)
(/) Major General/Air Vice Marshal/Rear Admiral
(g) Lieu/enant General/Air Marshal/Vice Admiral
(vi)
As per existing Govt. orders issued by the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, promotion in Army Medical Corps(AMC} upto
the rank of Captain, Major and Lt. Col and their equivalents in the
Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force are by time scale subject to
meeling the laid down criteria and substantive promotion to the
ranks ofColonel, Brigadier, Major General and Lieu/enant General
and their equivalents in the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force will
be by ·selection ·to fill the vacancies authorized from time to time
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
subject to the officer being found fit in all respects by appropriate
selection board as approved by the competent authority.
(vii) In terms of para JO of Al 7411976, officers granted
permanent commission in the Army Medical Corps will receive pay
and allowances at such rates and under such conditions as are laid
down in Pay and Allowances Regulations for Officer of the Army,
as amended from time to.time by the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of
India in consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of
Finance.
(viii) It is evidentfi"om record that before the 5'" Central Pay
Commission, doctors belonging to Central Health Service, Railways
etc. had raised a grievance of stagnation, lack of promotional
avenues etc. while dealing with terms and conditions of service and
pay and allowances of doctors serving in Central Health.Service
(CHS), the Railway Health Service and the Indian Ordnance
Factories Services, etc. the 5'" Central Pay Commission noted that
there was stagnation and lack of proper promotional avenues for
such doctors in the aforesaid three services and as such, it
recommended DACP for them. Therefore.for the benefit of doctors
belonging to CHS, Railways, Indian Ordnance Factories Servicesthe DACPwas recommended by the CPC only for the civilian doctors
governed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare etc. in that
category. This benefit was not extended to commissioned officers
serving as doctors in the three Services being governed by separate
norms including pay scales, promotions, etc. laid down by the
Ministry of Defence.
·
(ix)
It is also evidentft·om record that the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, vide letter dated 28.10.2005. conveyed the
sanction of the President to the reckonable commissioned service
for promotion to the rank lieutenant Colonel and equivalent as 11
years and for promotion to Colonel (Time Scale) as 24 years. Thus,
this letter was directed towards restructuring of Non-Select Ranks in
commissioned officers cadre of AFMS.
(.>)
The above mentioned order dated 28.10.2005 was aimed
. at granting/aster promotions to the commissioned officers doctors
constituting a separate class. The difference in promotional avenues
and hierarchical cadre, pay and allowances and other benefits of
AMC officers vis-a-vis civilian doctors is tabulated and shown as
below:
503
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20 Ii'] I S.C.R.
A
Doctors
of
AFMS
as
Civilian Doctors under the
Co1nn1issioned officers in the
Central Health Schen1e etc.
Indian Army, the Indian Air
Force and the Indian Navv
Governing
Ministry of Defence (MoD)
Ministry of Hea/Jh & Fami~v
resolution issued
vi de
No. I (3)/2008-D
Welfare dated 30.10.2008
by the Govt. of (Pay/Services)
dated
issued pursuant to Ministry
India
30.8.2008
of Finance resolution dated
B
29.8.2008
Service conditions
AFMS
doctors
are
Governn1ent by different set
Co1nn1issioned Officers in
of ternis and conditions of
Military Uniforn1 and are
service as applicable under
therefore
part of Arn1ed
the applicable rules such as
Forces.
All
the
service
Central Civil Services (CCS)
c
conditions in the n1at1er of Rules
etc.
in
respective
pay and a//0111ances
and
Health services.
service benefits applicable to
other army personnel dre
ann/icable to AFMS doctors.
Grade Pay (GP)
..... Rs. 6, /001After
in1ple1'1enting
the
Rs.6,6001-
/
DACP schen1e
Rs.5,4001-
'
Rs.8,0001-
/
..... Rs. 6.6001D
Rs.8, 7001Rs. 7. 600!- ..... Rs. I 0, 0001Rs.10,0001Rs.12,0001Promotional
ii
Captain/Flight
After
grant
of
DACP
Avenue/hierarchy
Lieutenant/Lieutenant
pron1otion
avenues
of
ii) Major/Squadron
civilian doctors are:
E
Leader/Lieutenant
(i) Medical Officers
Con1mander
(ii) Senior Medical Officers
iii) Lieutenant Colonel/Wing
(iii) Chief Medical Officer
Co111111ander/Con1mander
(iv) Chief Medical
Officer
iv) Colonel/Group
(NFSGJ
Captain/Captain (Navy)
(v) SAG
'v) Brigadier/Air
F
C on1modore/C on1n1odore
(Navy)
vi) Major General/Air Vice
Marshal/Rear Ad1niral
I
vii) Lieutenant
General/Air
Marshal/Vice Ad111iral
viiiJDGAFMS
G
Other
sen· ice
Military Service Pay@ Rest.
No such allo-a·ancelbenefit is
benefits
60001- pm for all officers up
available to civilian doctors
to
the rank of Brig in
dea/1 ~\·ith by the decisions of
addition
to
Gmde
Pay,
the Ministry of Health &
Outfit
allowance,
Kit
Family Welfare.
Maintenance
Alloii'ance,
Ration Money decided fron1
H
lin1e to time
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
[A.M. KHANWJLKAR, J.]
(.ri) It is evident from record that Armed Forces Personnel
(Commissioned Officers) and Civilian Government employees are
two different classes, the Central Pay Commissions (CPC) make
separate recommendations for them. The 6'" CPC also made separate
recommendations with regard to 'Pay Scales of Defence Forces
Personnel' (Chapter 2.3) and 'Allowances & Conditions of service
of Defence Forces Personnel' (Chapter 4.10). Therefore, when
the decisions wos to be taken by the Govt. of India, Ministry
of Defence with regard to recommendatio.ns of 6'" .Central
Pay Commission regarding grant of pay and allowances etc.
to the defence personnel, the draft resolution was examined
by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance.
(xii)
A note was issued by the Department o/Expen.diture
on 29. 08.2008 making it abundantly clear that the
recommendation of Dynamic ACP has nothing to do with the
· doctors inducted as commissioned officers in the Indian Army,
the Indian Air Force .and the Indian Navy by, inter alia,
observing as under:
"Ministry of Defence may please refer to Draft Resolution
regarding implementation of the Government's decision on
Pay Commission's recommendations relating to Officers of
Defence Forces for vetting before issue.
2. A point (ix) has been added in the Draft Resolution
regarding the enhanced Grade Pay for middle level officers
(from Captain/Equ. To Brigadierlequ).
3. In the annexure to the Resolution where revised pay scales
have been indicated, for the sake of clarity and understanding,
MOD may like to put two tables simultaneously one containing
the recommendations of the Sixth CPC and the .other showing
final decision of the Government in this regard. Similar tables
have been put in this Ministry's resolution relating to. civilian
Government employees.
4. In the Annexure to the R~solution relating to Allowances
concessions & benefits and ~qnditions of service of Defence
Forcespersonnel, against iteni 8, point no.(ii) relating to grant
of Dynamic ACP to doctors has been deleted, as the same is
not applicable to doctors iii the Defence Forces ....... "
505
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
506
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S.C.R.
(xiii) The above-mentioned unambiguous pos1110n
incorporated in para 4 of the note dated 29.08.2008 of the
Department of Expenditure to the effect that DACP Scheme
has nothing to do and is not applicable to doctors
(Commissioned Officers) in the Indian Army, the Indian Air
Force and the Indian Navy, and was accordingly not
mentioned in the eventual Resolution issued by the Ministry
of Defence, Govt. of India on 30.08.2008 implementing the
recommendations of the 6'h CPC.
(xiv) Therefore, as in the past, two separate Resolutions
were issued by the Government conveying the decisions on
the recommendations of the 6'h CPC. One Resolution was
issued by the Ministry of Finance in respect of the Civilian
employees vide resolution No.I/112008-JC dated 29.8.2008
and another Resolution was issued by the Ministry of Defence
in respect of Armed Forces Personnel (including AFMS
Commissioned Officers) vide No.1(30)12008-D (Pay/Services)
dated 30.08.2008.
(xv)
The civilian doctors including civilian doctors in the
AFMS (other than Commissioned Officer~) are governed by
the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Ministry of
Finance, Dept. of Expenditure read with the Circular by the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare dated 30.10.2008.
(xvi)
As per Govt. orders the Resolution dated 29.08.2008
deals only with the. civiliw_1 employees of the .Central Govt. in
Groups 'A', 'B ', 'C ', '!P including civilian doctors in the
DGAFMS (other than Commissioned Officers). The DACP
Scheme for doctors in the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 dealt
in para 12 is only with regard to civilian doctors including
civilian doctors in the DGAFMS (other than Commissioned
Officers).
(xvii) The Resolution of the Ministry of Defence dated
30. 08.2008 is for Defence personnel including doctors who
are appointed as 'Commissioned Officers'. Para 5 of the said
resolution of the Ministry of Defence dated 30.08.2008 is
reproduced as under;-
" ..... 5. The decisions taken by the Government accordingly
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
on various recommendations of the Commission in respect of
officers of Armed Forces are indicated in the statement at
Annexure-I to this resolution. The existing pay scales of
Officers of the Armed Forces are indicated in the Statement
at Annexure-11 ..... "
(xviii) Item No. 7 of Annexure-I and Item No. 7 of AnnexureIB appended to the Resolution of the Ministry of Defence
dated 30.08.2008 providing separately for the pay for AMC
Officers and also payment of various allowances for the
doctors working as commissioned officers in the Armed
Forces.
(xix) it is also clear from the recommendations made by
the 6'' CPC in para 3.6. 7 of its Report that 'the DACP Scheme
recommended by 5" Central Pay Commission for different
streams of doctors should be extended to all doctors including
those working in isolated posts. The promotions under DACP
for other categories of doctors will be guided by the same
conditions as applied in case of doctors working in Central
Health Scheme" is in respect of the Civilian Government
employees. Accordingly, the same was mentioned in para 12
of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Deptt. Of
Expenditure, Ministry of Finance which was in respect of the
Civilian employees. In pursuance of this Resolution of Deptt.
Of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare (Mio H&FW) vide their O.M No.A.450121
212008-CHS.V dated 29.10.2008 extended the DACP Scheme
to all medical doctors, whether belonging to organized
services or holding isolated posts. Thus, it is clear that the
O.M dated 29.10.2008 of Mb H&FW is applicable only in
respect of civilian doctors and not in respect of the AF.Ms
doctors, as the AFMS doctors are part and parcel of Armed
Forces Personnel.
(xx) However, for the civilian doctors of DGAFMS who
are not commissioned Officers, Ministry of Defence issued a
Circular dated 15.01.2009 making available for them the
benefit of DACP Scheme. As per existing orders civilian
doctors (who are not the Commissioned Officers) working as
General Duty Medical Officers and Teaching Sub-Cadre in
507
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
508
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S.C.R.
the DGAFMS are always dealt with and provided for with
same service conditions/benefits which are decided in relation
to other civilian doctors in Central Government services by
the respective authorities such as Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Railways, Ordnance Factories etc. and their service
conditions decided by the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India
for the commissioned officers constituting AFMS Cadre.
· (xxi) The doctors inducted as Commissioned Officers in
the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy
h<1ving at least 7 promotional positions in their respective
services i.e. Army, Navy and Air Force, having different pay
scales etc. - have no concern whatsoever with the terms and
conditions of service of the civilian doctors. As demonstrated
above, this distinction between the category of doctors
working as commissioned officers in the Indian Army, the
Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy governed by the norms
laid down by the Ministry of Defence and the civilian doctors
governed by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Railways
etc. - has always been well appreciated and acknowledged
· by the successive Pay Commissions including the 5'" and 6'"
Central pay Commissions.
(xxii) The record of Court cases mentioned and sought to
be relied upon by the case nowhere reveals that the abovementioned clear and unambiguous distinction between these
two categories of doctors, i.e. commissioned officers in the
Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy and
civilian doctors were properly disclosed/placed/explained to
the Hon 'ble Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Chandigarh Bench
while defending the OA filed by the Col. (Reid.} Sanjeev Sehgal
for implementation of DACP Scheme for AFMS officers. These
facts were also not placed before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal D No.14342 of 2013. In the two subsequent
court cases decided by the Ld. AFT, Principal Bench, New
Dq/hi while defending the OAs filed by Col. (Retd.) Aja ma/
Singh Bhayal and Gp. Capt. (Retd.) K.P. Singh, again the true
and correct facts in this regard were not placed. before the
AFT.
(xxiii) It is evident from the order dated 18. 7.2011 in 0.A.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
No.488 of 2011 passed by Ld. AFT. In other words, the
inapplicable Resolution dated 29.8.2008 was placed and
relied upon in O.A. No.488 of 2011 and the correct Resolution
dated 30.08.2008 of the Ministry of Defence applicable in
that case was not placed before the Ld. AFT.
(xx iv) When the above mentioned aspects came to be
noticed, the mat/er was again examined and the case was
taken up with the Ld. Allorney General for India, who advised
the Govt. to file appeals before the Hon 'hie Supreme Court
of India in the two cases of Col. (Reid.) Ajamal Singh Bhayal
and Gp. Capt. (Reid.) K.P. Singh.
(xxv) Therefore, the official records of the Govt. clearly
establish and demonstrate that doctors belonging to two
different categories/classes are treated and provided for
separately. It would therefore not be permissible to grant
benefit of DACP (meant for civilian doctors including the
civilian doi:tors in the DGAFMS) to the doctors inducted as
Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army, the Indian Air
Force and the Indian Navy.
(xxvi) The issue of grant of DACP Scheme with higher
Grade Pay to doctors and higher Grade Pay to .other
commissioned officers of the three Services as recommended
by the COSC is not only impermissible but also has far
reaching serious huge financial and other structural
ramifications for the Defence Forces.
(xxvii) The impermissible demand [by creating a confusion
by not placing correct facts] for making available the benefit
of DACP Scheme meant only for civilian doctors including
the civilian doctors in the DGAFMS to the doctors -inducted
as Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army. the Indian Air
Force and the Indian Navy who are dealt with and provided
509
A
B
c
D
E
F
for by the decisions of the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India
G
- has a potential of creating serious issues in the Indian Army,
the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy having 7 promotional
avenues for doctors inducted as commissioned officers and
•
are at par with the other non-doctors commissioned officers
in the Armed Forces.