Uoi & Ors vs B.N.Chaubey & Ors - Court Case

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 7, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Uoi & Ors vs B.N.Chaubey & Ors on 23 March, 2026

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 16.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 23.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 23.03.2026
+ W.P. (C) 980/2004 and W.P. (C) 981-982/2004
UOI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC
along with Mr. Shailendra
Kumar Mishra and Mr.
Abhishek Sharma, Advs.

                                                     versus

                             B.N. CHAUBEY & ORS.                                .....Respondents
                                           Through:             Mr. Nikhil Palli and Ms. Niyati
                                                                Razdan, Advs. for R-2.

                       +     W.P. (C) 17658/2004 and W.P.(C) 17659-17660/2004
                             THE UOI & ORS.                                .....Petitioners
                                              Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Ms.
                                                          Shreya Manjari, Advs.

                                                     versus

                             BADRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI                .....Respondent
                                          Through: Mr. Nikhil Palli & Ms. Niyati
                                                    Razdan, Advs.

                       +     W.P. (C) 1786/2004
                             UOI                                                 .....Petitioner
                                              Through:          Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC
                                                                along with Ms. Himanshi Singh
                                                                & Ms. Monalisha Pradhan
                                                                Advs.

                                                     versus

                             V.P. SHARMA                                         .....Respondent
                                                     Through:

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.03.2026 W.P. (C) 980/2004 & connected matters Page 1 of 24
17:30:57
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present batch of three petitions assail the correctness of judgments and orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟] whereby the lis concerning the age of superannuation of the Respondents was adjudicated. The controversy centres around their retirement at the age of 57 years instead of 60 years upon their re- employment in the Air Wing of the Border Security Force [hereinafter referred to as AW-BSF‟], on the premise that the posts held by them were civil/non-combatised in nature.

1. Since all the petitions arise from the same lis and turn upon overlapping issues; they are with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, being disposed of by this consolidated judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the W.P.(C) 17658/2004 is being treated as the lead case to extrapolate our decision in all three petitions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

1. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
                     petition, it would be apposite to briefly notice the relevant factual
                     background.
   

2. The Respondent, Sh. Badri Prasad Prajapati, was re-employed
   
                      on Direct Entry as Sub-Inspector Junior Aircraft Mechanic (SI-JAM)
                     in AW-BSF on 13.12.1991 against the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-,
                     following his discharge from the Air Force on 31.08.1990.
                     Subsequently, the Petitioner issued an order, thereby highlighting that
                     the Respondent would stand superannuated from the post of JAM
                     w.e.f. 31.07.2003, upon attaining the age of 57 years. Aggrieved by
                     the aforesaid decision of the Petitioner, the Respondent filed an
                     Original Application (OA), contending inter alia, that the post held by
                     him was civil in nature, therefore, the applicable age of
                     superannuation was 60 years and not 57 years.
   

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL: 5. The Respondent herein sought setting aside the order of
discharge at the age of 57 years on the following two grounds. Firstly,
in accordance with the provisions of Border Security Force (Air Wing,
non-combatised Group C and D posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996
[hereinafter referred to as „Rules of 1996‟], the personnel re-employed
from the Armed Forces against such civilian posts are entitled to
continue in service up to the age of superannuation applicable to
civilian employees, i.e., 60 years. Secondly, the offer of appointment
indicates that the post of JAM is non-combatised, and in the absence
of any Presidential sanction converting it into a combatised post, the
Petitioners cannot treat it otherwise. Thirdly, reliance was placed on
the previous decisions of the Tribunal in O.A. 946/2003 captioned AV
Balachandran v UOI, OA No. 837/2003 captioned BN Chaubey v
UOI and OA No. 611/2003 captioned VP Sharma v UOI, to argue

                       that these decisions squarely cover the matter at hand, since, in the
                      aforementioned cases, the Tribunal against the similar factual matrix
                      held that the incumbents holding non-combatised posts are to be
                      treated as civilian employees and are entitled to superannuate at the
                      age of 60 years.

1. Whereas, the Petitioner herein, at the outset challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, on the ground that the Respondent is a member of the BSF and the post held by the Respondent is combatised in nature, therefore the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. On merits of the case, it was argued that the Respondent, having availed the benefits attendant to a combatised post, including higher pay, promotional prospects, and ancillary allowances such as ration money, uniform, and washing allowances, cannot subsequently disclaim the corresponding service conditions, including the prescribed age of superannuation of 57 years. Pithily put, it was the case of the Petitioner that a government servant cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by selectively claiming the advantages of both combatised and non-combatised streams. Controverting the reliance placed on OA 946/2003 (Supra) by the Respondent, it was argued that the said decision already stands challenged before this Court and is pending adjudication.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

1. With respect to objection pertaining to the jurisdiction of the
                     Tribunal, the same was summarily rejected by placing reliance on the
                     Tribunal‟s order dated 23.01.2003 in OA No. 946/2003 (Supra),
   
                      wherein, on analogous facts, the Tribunal categorically held that it
                     possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes of this nature involving
                     re-employed Armed Forces personnel in the Border Security Force
                     (BSF).
   

2. With regard to the contention that the employee cannot
                     simultaneously claim the benefits of both combatised and non-
                     combatised cadres, the Tribunal held that such an assertion could not
                     be accepted in the absence of support from the governing Recruitment
                     Rules. Upon examining the applicable rules, the Tribunal found that
                     the Rules unequivocally provide that re-employed Armed Forces
                     personnel in the BSF shall continue in service up to the age of
                     superannuation with reference to civil posts.
   

3. Further, it was also held that the Rules stipulate that personnel
                     on deputation would continue under deputation terms until their
                     release from the Armed Forces and thereafter remain on re-
                     employment up to the age of superannuation applicable to civilian
                     posts. In view of the aforesaid discussion and relying upon its earlier
                     decisions on the subject, the Tribunal by way of Order dated
                     12.05.2004 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order/IO‟] allowed
                     the OA filed by the Respondent, thereby directing the Petitioner to
                     permit him to continue service until the age of superannuation
                     applicable to civilian posts, i.e., 60 years. It is this interplay between
                     form and substance, designation and reality, which this Court is
                     sought to resolve.
   

4. Before this Court proceeds to engage with the rival contentions

                      urged at the Bar, it would be appropriate to first advert to the relevant
                     extracts of the Rules and the communications issued by the
                     Government from time to time, together with the appointment letter of
                     the Respondent, which collectively form the bedrock of the
                     submissions advanced by the parties. The same are reproduced
                     hereunder:
   

Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act, 1952 "25. Liability to be called up for service. Every member of an Air
Force Reserve or the Auxiliary Air Force shall, during the period of
his service, be liable to be called up-

(a) for training for such period as may be prescribed and for
medical examination,

(b) for service in aid of the civil power,

(c) for Air Force service in India or abroad."
BSF (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of
Officers) Rules 1978
"12. Superannuation-

The officer holding posts higher than that of a rank Commandants
shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month
in which they attain the age of sixty years; and officers of other ranks
shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month
in which they attain the age of fifty-seven years;
Provided that an officer whose date of birth is the first of a month
shall retire from service till the afternoon of the last day of the
preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years or fifty seven
years, as the case may be."

Letter dated 19.09.1989 issued by Ministry of Home
Affairs:

I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the
combatisation of ministerial and other civilian posts in the
headquarters of the Dte. General Border Security Force (including
Pay and Accounts Division, (illegible) Centre, Airwing and other
wings/cells) and BSF Hospitals under BSF ACT, 1968 and BSF Rules,
1969 with immediate effect subject to the following terms and
conditions :-

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(c) All future appointment/recruitments to the vacancies in the various
categories of posts combatised by this sanction shall be in the
combatised ranks as per the recruitment rules.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
STATEMENT INDICATING THE EXISTING POSTS IN BSF
HQRS AND BSF HOSPITALS AND THE EQUIVALENT RANK
ASSIGNED TO THEM ON COMBATISAD COMBATISATION
Designation of existing Equivalent Rank on
posts combatisation
(Scale of pay) (Scale of pay)
BSF HQRS AIRWING
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

1. Sr. Aircraft Mechanic Sub-Inspector (Mech) (Rs. 1400-2300) (Rs. 1400-2300)

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

1. Jr. Mechanic ASI (Mech) (Rs. 1320-2040) (Rs. 1320-2040)

Appointment letter of the Respondent dated 21.10.1991
"I am directed to convey that you have been approved for
appointment to the post of Junior Aircraft Mechanic, in the pay scale
of Rs. 1400-2300."
Schedule to Recruitment Rules, 1996
JUNIOR AIRCRAFT MECHANIC

1. Name of the post :: Junior Aircraft Mechanic

2. Nos of Posts :: 03* (Three)(1996) (*Subject
   to variation dependent on
   workload)

3. Classification :: Genral Central Service
   Group „C‟, Non-Gazetted Non-

Ministerial.

1. Scale of Pay :: Rs. 1320-30-1560-40-EB-

2040/-

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

                             12. In the case of recruitment by         :: Transfer :- Government
                            promotion/deputation/transfer             servant      possessing  the
                            grade         from         which          qualifications as laid down
                            promotion/deputation/transfer             under column (8) shall be
                            to be made                                considered for transfer.
                                                                      For Ex-Servicemen:- Transfer
                                                                      on deputation/re-employment.
                                                                      The Armed Force personnel
                                                                      due to retire or who are to be
                                                                      transferred to reserve within a
                                                                      period of one year and having
                                                                      requisite    experience    and
                                                                      qualification specified shall
                                                                      also be considered. Such
                                                                      persons shall be given
                                                                      deputation terms upto the date
                                                                      on which they are due for
                                                                      release from the Armed
                                                                      Forces, thereafter, they may be
                                                                      continued on re-employment
                                                                      upto age of superannuation
                                                                      with reference to the civil
                                                                      posts.

                           Schedule to Recruitment Rules, 1997
                            1. Name of the post                   :: Junior Aircraft Mechanic
                                                                  (Sub Inspector)
                            2. Nos of Posts                       :: 25* (Twenty five)(1997)
                                                                  (*Subject     to    variation
                                                                  dependent on workload)
                            3. Classification                     :: General Centra Service
                                                                  Group „C‟, Non-Gazetted
                                                                  Non-Ministerial.
                            4. Scale of Pay                       :: Rs. 4500-125-7000
                            xxxxx             xxxxx           xxxxx            xxxxx          xxxxx
                            12. In case of recruitment by         Promotion:
                            promotion/deputation/transfer         Assistant Aircraft Mechanic
                            grades       from         which       with eight years regular
                            promotion/deputation/transfer to      services in the grade.
                            be made
                                                                  Transfer                        on
                                                                  deputation/transfer:
                                                                  Officials below 35 years age

                                                               under Central Government/
                                                              State       Government/Public
                                                              Undertaking             holding
                                                              analogous posts or in the grade
                                                              of Rs.4000-100-6000 with 5
                                                              years service in the grade and
                                                              possessing        qualifications
                                                              prescribed under column 8.
                                                              (Period of deputation including
                                                              period of deputation in another
                                                              ex-cadre post held immediately
                                                              preceding this appointment in
                                                              same      or    some      other
                                                              organisation department shall
                                                              ordinarily not exceed three
                                                              years).
                                                              (The departmental officers who
                                                              are in the direct line of
                                                              promotion shall not be eligible
                                                              for      consideration      for
                                                              appointment on deputation,
                                                              similarly deputationists shall
                                                              not      be    eligible     for
                                                              consideration for appointment
                                                              by promotion).
                                                              Re-employment :- The Armed
                                                              force personnel due to retire or
                                                              who are to be transferred to
                                                              reserve within a perios of one
                                                              year       and        possessing
                                                              qualification prescribed under
                                                              column 8 shall be considered
                                                              to transfer on deputation. Such
                                                              persons     shall    be    given
                                                              deputation term upto the date
                                                              of which they are due for
                                                              release from the Armed Forces,
                                                              thereafter they may be
                                                              continued on re-employment
                                                              (Re-employment upto the age
                                                              of     superannuation       with
                                                              reference to civil posts) Circular dated 22.01.1999 issued by the Ministry of Home
                           Affairs

                             Consequent upon enhancement of retirement age of the Members of
                            Para Military Forces by the Central Government, the Defence
                            personnel re-employed in BSF will retire on attaining the
                            superannuation age as under except in the case of Defence personnel
                            re-employed in BSF Law cadre, Medical cadre and veterinarians in
                            whose case the retirement age would be 60 years irrespective of rank
                            they are holding in respective cadres:-

S No. Rank Revised superannuation
age
01. Upto the rank of COMDT 57 years
02. ADIG and above 60 years CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THIS COURT:

1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while controverting the observations made by the Tribunal, has made the following submissions-

11.1 It has been reiterated that the benefits and conditions attached to
combatised posts are materially distinct and more advantageous than
those applicable to civilian posts. It has been stated that the
combatised posts are provided with higher pay scales and additional
allowances over their civilian counterparts. To establish the
aforestated, it has been stated that the pay scale for the post of Junior
Aircraft Mechanic (JAM) in the civilian cadre is Rs. 1320-2040
(revised to Rs. 4000-6000), whereas the corresponding combatised
post commands a higher pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 (revised to Rs.
5500-9000).

11.2 It has been argued that all the posts in AW-BSF have been duly
combatised, with presidential sanction formally conveyed by way of
letter dated 19.09.1989 [hereinafter referred to as „Sanction of 1989‟].
Further reliance is also placed on circular dated 29.01.1999 issued by

                       Ministry of Home Affairs, to establish that the retirement age for
                      Defence personnel re-employed in BSF upto the rank of Commandant
                      shall be 57 years.

11.3 The Petitioner has submitted that in the year 1991, the
Government sanctioned 200 posts across various categories in the
AW-BSF, including posts for JAM. While conveying the presidential
sanction for creation of these posts vide Circular dated 18.6.1991
[hereinafter referred to as „Sanction of 1991‟], it was not explicitly
stated that these posts were civilian in nature. It has been argued that
this omission is consistent with the established practice, whereby the
creation of additional posts in combatised cadres does not require a
fresh presidential sanction, as it is presumed that all new posts fall
within the combatised stream.

11.4 Conversely, the creation or conversion of civilian posts into
combatised posts invariably necessitates and receives a separate
presidential sanction, as was the case with the order dated 19.09.1989.
It is contended that since the post against which the Respondent was
appointed was sanctioned subsequent to the Sanction of 1989, it
follows that such posts cannot be characterized as civilian posts.
Consequently, the Respondent is precluded from claiming the
retirement benefits applicable to civilian posts.

11.5 Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon Rule 12 of
BSF (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules,
1978 [hereinafter referred to as „Rules of 1978‟] to contend that
officers holding ranks other than that of Commandant are required to

                       retire from service upon attaining the age of 57 years. In aid of the
                      said submission, reliance has also been placed upon a circular dated
                      29.01.1999 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which, according
                      to the Petitioners, clarifies that the age of retirement of re-employed
                      defence personnel up to the rank of Commandant is 57 years.

11.6 Reliance has also been placed on Section 25 of the Reserve and
Auxiliary Air Force Act, 1952 to submit that a person enrolled in the
Reserve remains liable to be called up for training for a prescribed
duration. It has been argued that the very object underlying enrolment
in the Reserve is not to rehabilitate, redeploy, or re-employ such
personnel in any other service, but rather to maintain their availability
for training and service, as and when required. In this backdrop, it has
been contended that the Respondents have erroneously conflated the
concept of "reserve enrolment" with that of "re-employment", even
though the two operate in distinct and independent spheres, and
enrolment in the Reserve bears no nexus with re-employment.

11.7 While elucidating the contours of the expression re-
employment, it has been urged that, for the purposes of the present
case, the concept may broadly be understood in two distinct
categories. The first pertains to the re-employment of an ex-
serviceman through direct entry in terms of the Ex-Servicemen (Re-
employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979
[hereinafter referred to as „Rules of 1979‟]. The second category
concerns cases where personnel, prior to their retirement or enrolment
in the Reserve while still in service, are deputed to other posts in
accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules. It is the categorical

                       submission of learned counsel that the present case squarely falls
                      within the ambit of the first category.

11.8 Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in CW
622/2003 captioned M.S. Malik v The Director General, BSF, to
argue that the Petitioner therein having availed himself of the
enhanced monetary benefits and service conditions of the combatised
stream, will be governed by Rule 43 of the Central Reserved Police
Force Rules, 1955 as applicable to the BSF and will superannuate at
the age of 57 years.

11.9 Further reinforcing the aforesaid stance, a reliance has also been
placed on the judgment of Division Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court in Civil Special Appeal No.1127/2000, decided on 16.01.2001,
wherein it has been held that once an employee has enjoyed all the
benefits attendant to service in a combatised post, he cannot, at the fag
end of his service, contend that he ought to be treated as a non-
combatised employee to claim more favourable terms of retirement.

1. Per contra, learned counsels for the Respondent, while
   challenging the early retirement order issued by the Petitioner, have
   opposed the petitions filed before this Court, by submitting that the
   order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this
   Court and thus the present petitions deserve to be dismissed.

2. In addition, it is their case that both the Rules of 1996 and the
   BSF (Air Wing Non-Gazetted (Combatised) Group „C‟ Posts)
   Recruitment Rules, 1997 [hereinafter referred to as „Rules of 1997‟],
   expressly provide for continuation of re-employed Armed Forces

                      personnel upto the civilian retirement age. As such, since the
                     Respondent was re-employed prior to the Rules of 1996, when the
                     post was non-combatised, the subsequent Rules of 1997, which
                     classified the post as combatised are inapplicable to them.
   

ANALYSIS AND REASONING OF THIS COURT:

1. The present petition brings before this Court not a mere dispute
   about three additional years of service, but a deeper question that goes
   to the heart of institutional structure and discipline within an armed
   force of the Union: who is a „soldier‟ and who is a „civilian‟ within the
   BSF, and by what legal alchemy may one who has lived and served as
   the former, at the twilight of his tenure, seek to be treated as the latter.

2. Therefore, as already enumerated the principal question that
   arise for our determination is whether the Respondent, who was
   appointed as JAM in the AW-BSF, was holding a combatised post or
   a civilian/non-combatised post, and consequently whether the
   applicable age of superannuation would be 57 years or 60 years.

3. In order to resolve the controversy that lies at the heart of the
   present petition, it becomes necessary to traverse the legal landscape
   upon which the Tribunal founded its conclusions. In our considered
   view, the answer must emerge from a careful scrutiny of the
   „Presidential sanction dated 19.09.1989‟, „the true nature of the
   Respondent‟s appointment and the service conditions that governed
   his tenure‟ and „the statutory framework embodied in the Rules of
   1996 and 1997‟.

4. It is only by examining these elements in their proper
   perspective that we may discern the true character of the post in
   question and determine the age of superannuation that lawfully
   attaches to it.

5. At the outset, we may highlight that the BSF is not merely a
   department of the Government; it is an armed force of the Union
   constituted and regulated under a special statute, the BSF Act, 1968,
   with the BSF Rules, 1969 providing a complete code for the
   discipline, ranks, promotions and superannuation of its combatised
   members.

6. The Rules of 1978, framed in furtherance of this statutory
   design, draw a clear, normative line that the officers above the rank of
   Commandant retire at 60 years of age, whereas those of other ranks,
   including Sub-Inspectors, retire at the age of 57 years. It may be noted
   that, this clear distinction is not an arbitrary monologue rather it is an
   attempt to create a legislative balance between the demands of a
   uniformed service, the imperatives of fitness and deployability and the
   expectations of tenure.

7. The aforesaid attempt to create a balance, further finds support
   from the Circular dated 22.01.1999 issued by Ministry of Home
   Affairs („MHA‟), which echoes and reinforces the aforementioned
   architecture. It highlights that consequent upon enhancement of
   retirement age in the Central Para-Military Forces, the Defence
   personnel re-employed in BSF upto the rank of Commandant shall
   retire at 57 years, with only Additional Director Generals and above

                      retiring at the age of 60 years. The threefold structure: combatant
                     status, rank, and a lower age of retirement, is thus woven consistently
                     through statute, rules and executive instructions.
   

8. Against this statutory backdrop, the Sanction of 1989 assumed
   determinative significance. By the said communication the MHA,
   conveyed the sanction of the President for the combatisation of
   ministerial and other civilian posts in the Headquarters of the
   Directorate General, BSF, including the Air Wing, subject, inter alia,
   to the term that "all future appointment/recruitments to the vacancies
   in the various categories of posts combatised by this sanction shall be
   in the combatised ranks as per the recruitment rules".

9. Whereas the schedule appended to the said sanction, spoke with
   the clarity of a map, within the AW-BSF, thereby identifying amongst
   others, the pre-existing post of Senior Aircraft Mechanic and Junior
   Mechanic, with their scales of pay, as well as assigning to the them
   the equivalent combatised ranks of Sub-Inspector (Mechanic) and
   Assistant Sub-Inspector (Mechanic) in the same scales. The
   unmistakable import of this order is that the functional posts in the Air
   Wing relating to aircraft maintenance were brought within the fold of
   the combatised cadre of the BSF.

10. Therefore, once such transformation of the cadre was effected
    with Sanction of 1989, the very stream of maintenance posts into
    which the Respondent have flowed was re-channelled by the President
    into the combatised regime of the BSF Act and Rules. Accordingly,
    the legal character of the said posts and of „all future appointments‟,

                       thereto stood altered and were to be treated as appointment to
                      combatised ranks, unless a contrary decision by the Government
                      specifically preserved them as civilian positions. However, no such
                      contrary decision has been brought to the notice of this Court by the
                      Respondent.
    

11. To highlight briefly, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the
    OA on the premise that since the Sanction of 1991 creating the post
    did not expressly describe them as combatised, the said posts must be
    regarded as civilian post. In the opinion of this Court, this line of
    reasoning overlooks the administrative logic that governs cadre
    management. Once a cadre stands combatised by a Presidential
    decision, the subsequent creation of posts within that cadre does not
    require a repetitive declaration of combatised status. The combatised
    character inheres in the cadre itself. The Sanction of 1989 having
    already accomplished the transformation of the Air Wing posts, the
    additional posts sanctioned in 1991 must necessarily partake of the
    same combatised character.

12. It is in this legal landscape that the appointment of the
    Respondent must be located. The Respondent was discharged from the
    Air Force on 31.08.1990, more than a year thereafter, on 21.10.1991,
    he was issued an offer of appointment for the post of JAM, against the
    pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Subsequently, he joined the AW-BSF as
    SI-JAM on 13.12.1991. It was brought to the notice of this Court by
    learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the civilian Air Wing, the
    post of JAM carried a pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040, later revised to Rs.
    4000-6000. Whereas, as opposed to the aforementioned pay structure,

                       the combatised SI-JAM post, commanded the higher scale of Rs.
                      1400-2300, later revised to Rs. 5500-9000.
    

13. Notably, the aforestated is not an accidental detail of
    nomenclature, the Respondent did not enter at the lower, civilian
    scale, nor was he styled merely as a mechanic in a general central
    service. Rather, he was appointed as SI-JAM, with the rank, the pay
    scale and allowances associated with a combatised BSF subordinate
    officer including ration money, uniform and washing allowances, and
    the promotional prospects of that cadre, as has been contended by the
    Petitioners, and not denied by the Respondent.

14. Therefore, in substance, the Respondent stood in the shoes of a
    combatised BSF officer, he marched the drum of the BSF Act and
    Rules and did not tread the quieter path of civil establishment.
    Accordingly, the Respondent cannot be permitted to approbate and
    reprobate to accept the benefits of a particular service regime while
    repudiating its burden, since service jurisprudence demands
    consistency of status, not opportunistic oscillation between cadres.

15. The Tribunal while rendering the IO placed heavy reliance upon
    the Rules of 1996, particularly on the clause in column 12 that the
    Armed Forces personnel, on deputation and thereafter on re-
    employment, may be continued upto age of superannuation with
    reference to the civil posts. However, two features of the said Rules
    are decisive; firstly, by its own title and classification, the Rules are
    addressed as non-combatised Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts, the civil cadre
    of the AW-BSF. The schedule for JAM therein sets out a lower scale

                       of Rs. 1320-2040 and classified the post as „General Central Service
                      Group „C‟, non-gazetted and non-ministerial. Secondly, the very text
                      of column 12 limits the deputation-cum-re-employment clause to
                      „Armed Force personnel due to retire or who are to be transferred to
                      reserve within a period of one year‟, i.e., serving personnel seconded
                      to these civil posts shortly before their release, and then continued as
                      civil re-employed staff.
    

16. In the present case, the Respondent does not fall within the
    class of personnel contemplated under the Rules of 1996. The said
    Rules envisage a narrow and clearly delineated category, namely,
    serving Armed Forces personnel who are either due to retire or liable
    to be transferred to the reserve within a stipulated period, and who
    may consequently be considered for appointment on deputation, to be
    followed by re-employment upon their release from the Armed
    Forces. However, the Respondent does not answer this description.

17. At the time of his engagement in the AW-BSF, he was not a
    serving member of the Armed Forces approaching retirement, but an
    ex-serviceman who had already been discharged from service. Equally
    significant is the fact that he was never borne on the civilian pay scale
    of Rs. 1320-2040, which was the scale attached to the non-combatised
    post of JAM. On the contrary, he entered service directly against the
    post carrying the higher pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300, corresponding to
    the combatised rank of Sub-Inspector (Mech) a position that stood
    firmly embedded within the combatised framework by virtue of the
    Sanction of 1989.

18. In these circumstances, the Respondent‟s attempt to invoke the
    protective umbrella of the Rules of 1996 is fundamentally
    misconceived. To apply those Rules to his case would be to
    superimpose upon his appointment a civilian character which the post
    never possessed, either in law or in fact. Service jurisprudence cannot
    be stretched to accommodate such retrospective re-characterisation of
    a cadre position that was, from its very inception in the Respondent‟s
    case, part of the combatised establishment of the Force.

19. Equally unavailing is the Respondent‟s reliance upon the Rules
    of 1997. The said Rules, as their very title proclaims, were framed for
    the combatised Group „C‟ posts of the AW-BSF. The Schedule
    appended thereto describes the post of "SI-JAM", prescribing a
    revised pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000, and although the classification is
    couched in the familiar terminology of "General Central Service
    Group „C‟, Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial", the substance of the
    Rules unmistakably pertains to the combatised cadre mapped to the
    rank hierarchy of the BSF.

20. In substance, Column 12 of the said Schedule reiterates, the
    deputation-cum-re-employment mechanism that had earlier appeared
    in the Rules of 1996. It contemplates that Armed Forces personnel
    who are due to retire or are to be transferred to the reserve within a
    period of one year may initially be taken on deputation, continue on
    deputation terms until their formal release from the Armed Forces,
    and thereafter be continued on re-employment up to the age of
    superannuation with reference to civil posts.

21. However, the said Rules when read in its proper statutory
    context, this clause does not enlarge or alter the rights of those who
    are already serving as combatised personnel of the BSF under the
    discipline of the BSF Act and Rules. Its purpose is far more modest: it
    merely provides an administrative bridge enabling the serving Armed
    Forces personnel, deputed to the Air Wing at the threshold of
    retirement, to transition into the organisation and continue thereafter
    on re-employment terms. It cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be
    read as displacing the comprehensive scheme governing the age of
    superannuation prescribed under the Rules of 1978, which
    unequivocally mandates that officers below the rank of Commandant
    shall retire at the age of 57 years.

22. The Tribunal, in allowing the OA, appears to have proceeded
    upon two premises; (i) that the post held by the Respondent retained a
    civilian or non-combatised character, and (ii) that the Rules of 1996
    governed the Respondent‟s service conditions. Both these
    assumptions, overlook the transformative effect of the Sanction of
    1989, which brought the relevant posts within the combatised
    structure of the BSF. They also fail to take adequate account of the
    actual service conditions enjoyed by the Respondent throughout his
    tenure, including the higher pay scale, rank equivalence, and attendant
    allowances characteristic of the combatised cadre.

23. The Tribunal‟s approach, though undoubtedly guided by a
    desire to afford relief to the Respondent, does not sufficiently engage
    with the institutional framework within which the BSF operates. The
    BSF is not a conventional civil department but a disciplined armed

                       force of the Union, where cadre structure, rank hierarchy, and
                      uniformity of service conditions constitute the very backbone of
                      organisational       governance.        Therefore,   any   interpretation    of
                      recruitment or service rules must be sensitive to this structural reality.
                      To disregard it would be to dilute the carefully calibrated architecture
                      of the Force‟s service regime, an outcome which the law neither
                      contemplates nor permits.
    

24. The Tribunal, in the IO while relying upon its previous decision
    in case of A.V. Balachandran (Supra), proceeded as though the
    absence of an individual order naming each post was proof that no
    combatisation had occurred, and as though the mere existence of the
    Rules of 1996 sufficed to clothe every JAM or Aircraft Mechanic with
    civilian status, regardless of rank, scale or Presidential sanction.

25. This approach overlooks the decisive reality that the Sanction of
    1989, read with its schedule, had already drawn within its fold the Air
    Wing maintenance posts and woven them into the combatised fabric
    of the Force. It similarly overlooks the fact that the Respondent‟s own
    appointment letter, pay scale and service conditions consistently
    placed them in that combatised fabric, not in the civilian fringe.

26. Most importantly, the Tribunal failed to grapple with the
    principle articulated in M.S. Malik (Supra), which binds this Court,
    that one who has taken the benefits of combatised status must also
    bear its burdens, and cannot, at will, oscillate between the two
    classifications to secure the most congenial outcome. That principle is
    rooted as much in fairness as in legal coherence and the Tribunal

                       failed to even attempt to distinguish the same.
    

CONCLUSION:

1. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court arrives at the following conclusions:

i. The Air Wing posts relating to Aircraft Mechanics stood
combatised pursuant to the Presidential sanction dated
19.09.1989.
ii. The posts created in 1991 formed part of this combatised
cadre, and the Respondent was appointed accordingly.

iii. Throughout his service the Respondents availed the pay
scale, allowance, rank and service privilege attached to
combatised posts.

iv. The Rules of 1996 apply only to civilian posts, whereas
the combatised cadre is governed by the service framework
reflected in the Rules of 1997 and the BSF statutory regime.

v. In terms of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1978, the Respondent
was liable to retire at the age of 57 years.

1.    Therefore, the impugned order directing the continuation of the
                     Respondent upto the age of 60 years cannot be sustained in law.
   

2.    Keeping in view the above position of law, as well as the facts
                     and circumstances of the present case, the present Petitions are
   
                      allowed. The Impugned Orders passed by the Tribunal, which is under
                     challenge herein, is hereby set aside.
   

3. Accordingly, the present petitions, along with pending
   applications, stands disposed of.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

MARCH 23, 2026
s.godara/hr