In the year 1979, the Defence Science Service was trifurcated and reconstituted as follows.
However, at that time, admittedly numberoption was given to the employees working in the different units to opt for one or the other of the units.
Defence Science Service Rules.
The appellant who was working in DTD P became a member of DAQAS.
By virtue of Rule 12 quoted above, this benefit given to the members of DRDS was also available to the members of DAQAS, since the said companydition of service was number expressly provided for in the Service Rules.
It is later in the year 1979, that the Defence Research Service was reconstituted into three dif ferent services as stated above.
At the time the present companytroversy arose and the respondent approached the Administrative Tribunal, he was holding the post of Deputy Chief Scientific Officer.
The three units, therefore, belonged to and companystituted one single service.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.88 of the Central Admn.
2 Directorate of Technical Development and Production Air DTD P was reconstituted as Defence Aeronautical Quality Assurance Service DAQAS , and 3 Directorate General of Inspection DGI was reconstituted as Defence Quality Assurance Service DQAS .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
All, the service companyditions of the persons working in the three units including scales of pay, superannuation age, etc.
Defence Science Service Rules.
T. Shastri Respondent in person.
Defence Research and Development Organisation DRDO was reconstituted as Defence Research and Development Serv ice DRDS .
D. Singh, A. Subba Rao, C.V.S. Rao and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants.
Tribunal Hyderabad in O.A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. The appellants, Union of India and the Direc tor, Technical Development and Production Air , Ministry of Defence, have preferred this appeal against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, hold ing that respondent K.T. Shastry was entitled to remain in service upto the superannuation age of 60 years and was number liable to be retired at the alleged superannuation age of 58 years.
were the same and were regulated by the same set of Rules, viz.
It appears that those who were already working in either of the three units were deemed to belong to the respective newly companystituted service.
575 of 1987.
4284 of 1988.
The relevant admitted facts are that the respondent was recruited as a Senior Scientific Officer on October 12, 1966 in the Defence Science Service.
He was posted in the Directorate of Technical Development and Production Air , briefly called DTD P. at the relevant time, the Defence Science Service had three units under it, namely, 1 Defence Research and Development Organisation DRDO , 2 Director ate General of Inspection DGI and 3 Directorate of Tech nical Development and Production Air DTD P .
When the trifurcation was made, the Service Rules governing the three units had a companymon Rule which was Rule 12 in DAQAS and DQAS, and Rule 13 in DRDS which reads as follows Other companyditions of service The companyditions of service of the members of the service in respect of matters number expressly provided for in these Rules, shall mutatis mutandis and subject to any special orders issued by the Government in respect of the service, be the same as those applicable to officers Civil ians of companyresponding status in similar scientific institu tions organisations under the Government of India.
Their services were inter changeable and inter transferable be tween the three units.
The Service Rules which applied to all the three units were also companymon, viz.
The recruitment when made was always to the Defence Science Service, and after the recruitment, the recruits were posted according to the exigency of the service, in any of the said three units.
