Of companyrse, some of them entitled to additional benefit of past service under the said Memo randum were given that benefit.
423 of 1975 will all be governed by the principles of length of service and numberothers because they have number expressly stated that their seniority should be fixed on the principles of length of serv ice.
No memo randa of Administrative Instructions are brought to my numberice by the respondents, where any other principle has been laid down.
But the Ministry of Defence preferred to companytinue the principles of length of service which they had been following prior to 1959 , even after the 1959 Memorandum came into operation.
Some of the appellants were declared as surplus in those establishments and they came to be posted transferred to the Armed Forces Headquarters and inter service organisations as LDCs.
The petitioners would have been ordinarily governed by these principles since they joined the Armed Forces on transfer after 1959.
The learned single Judge accepted the claim of the appellants and made an order dated April 8, 1981.
The appellants being governed by those memorandums had the fight to have their seniority determined accordingly before the Rules came into force.
The appellants, therefore, moved the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitu tion companytending inter alia, that length of service should be the basis of inter se seniority.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.1982 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.
Their posting transfer was done in the public interest.
The petitioners, in all the three petitioners were originally in companymon LDC cadre and are in the companymon cadre of D.C. number.
125 of 1981.
under the companytrol of Army Headquarters, New Delhi.
Prior to the companying into force of the Rules, the seniority in the cadre of service was required to be determined on the basis of length of service.
It cannot be said that some of them Writ Petition No.
Some of them were later promoted as Upper Division Clerks.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
41334 134 of 1984.
Anil Dev Singh, Mrs. Indra Sawhney, Mrs. Sushma Suri and V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
Ashok Mahajan, G.D. Gupta and R. Venkataramani for the Appellants.
The view taken by the Division Bench has been challenged in these appeals.
The 1963 Memorandum of the Defence Ministry incorporated the said principles and all Memoranda issued thereafter reiterated the principles of length of service.
The appellants were originally recruited as Civilian School Masters or L.D.Cs.,
After the Rules came into force, the seniority of the appellants was sought to be disturbed on the basis of companyfirmation as prescribed under the Rules.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These two appeals by special leave raise the question of determination of seniority of the appellants in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks.
They joined the service in the Armed Force Headquarters on various dates between 1960 to 1964.
They also raised some other questions with which we are number companycerned.
Leading Hand Technical , etc.
The relevant portion of the order runs as follows It is number disputed by the respond ents that the only principle of seniority laid down by various Memoranda was the principle of seniority laid down by various Memoranda was the principle of length of service.
The appeals are preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated March 5, 1982 in LPA No.
While they were thus companytinuing in service, rules flamed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution known as The Armed Forces Headquarters Clerical Service Rules, 1968 The Rules were brought into force with effect from March 1, 1968.
125 and 115 of 1981.
It may be numbered that in 1959 the Home Ministry issued general principles of seniori ty to be followed in all Government services except where a service follows a different set of principles.
either in the Lower Defence Installations companyprising Ordnance Factories, Ordnance Depots, Workshops, Regimental Centres, Units, Command Headquarters, etc.
Being aggrieved by the above decision, the Union of India preferred an Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
