COL. b.D. JOSHI & Ors. v. UNION OF I"NDIA & Ors.

·first batch ·of petitions were .granted comm~ssion in AMC beiween 1954 and 1963. Petitioner in the second petition ~as·commissioned'as a regular offi~er in AMC on Mat~h IS, 1'970. There are in all 154 commissioned officers indud ing the petitioners belonging to AMC who are similarly .situated and who according to the petitioners suffered the same discrim.inil= tory treatment. The petition is not. in a representative capacity. ~etitioners assert that the decisibn in this group of petitions would affect roughly-147 other officers. Petitioners held post graduate qualifications in different bran J; ~ ' ~· . ches of medical . science and some of them held an approved ~hole­ time appointment in a recognised civil hospital for a perivd of sb1 .11wnths or 111ore prior to being commissio!Jed in l\MC. ~ . ' - - . .. ' 8 c D G A B c D \,- - E F G ,. ' H ' 452 SUPREME COURT REPO!l.TS [1983] 2 s.c.R. There is a provision for giving the benefit of ante-dating the commission for varying' periods, if the commissioned officer at the time of entry fulfils prescribed qualification. The earliest available . reference is to Army Instruction No. 31/S/48 dated August 16, 1948 which provided !Ill under : · "(a) An officer who has held an approved wholetime appointment in a ·recognised civil hospital for a period of six months or more will be eligible for an ante· date of six months. ·~· (b) A candidate will be eligible for the grant of. an ante-Jate not exceeding six months if he, at the time of selection, is in possession of a post graduate Diploma _in any branch of medical science recognised by the Indian Medical Conucil, provided that the candidate lias to atten.d a course of Instruction in a recognised institu· tion for at least 9 months to qualify for such Diploma. · I (c) At the time of appointment a,candidate will be eligible for the grant of an ante-date not exceeding 12 months in respect of higher qualifications obtained prior to appointment. This will normally be granted for quali fications such as Doctor of Medicine, Master of Surgery, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeon_s, Member of the ~oyal College of Phy,sicians or an equivalent qualification obtained by examination from· recognised Universities or colleges. (d) In the c_ase of a candidate who is eligible for an ante date 11nder. more than one of the preceding sub·para graphs, the maximum period of ante-date will be limited to eighteen months." It appears that prior to December 31st, 1965 maximum period - of ante-dating benefit was I. I /2 years which ·was reduced to one It was enlarged to l!laximum 2-1/'4, year from J11nuary I, 1966. years from April I, 1978. Thus the period varied but-. the conditions for eligibility remained more or less constant. . . 1 ' .J . ) ., .. ~· }'-'•. ',,. D.D. JOSHI v. UNION (Desai, J.)' 453 _,,,_ By Army Instruction No.74 of f976, the period of ante-dating (c) remained unchanged but the period under 'clauses (a), (b) · & under c,lause (d) was raised to 18 months in the aggregate. ' By the impugned Army Instruction No. 78 of 78 dat~d. November, 4, 1978, a further upward revision. 1n 'the period of ante·dating the commission by amending.Army Instruction No. 74 of 76 was.prescribed: By ihis ainendment;·the period prescribe<! in . clause '(a) above .t~mained unchang~d. The jleri6d of ante·dating . prescrbed fo clause (b) wa.s revised from 6' .months to 12 ,months · months ·to 12 months. In clause (c),· !he period of 12 months was revis~d to 2 years and in clause (d), the aggregate was upward revised from 12 months to 2-1/2. years. A note• wa~ apptpded introduces to thjs amendment which according to' the petitione_rs the discrimination. aad the period of . instruction· was It reads as u°'der : from 9 revised "The above provisions are effective w.e.i'. l.4. 78. How ever, the seniority of Officers who joined with PG. quali· ficatio~s during 1-1/1/2 ye~rs prior to 1.4.78 will be pro.: tected by grant of requ;site ante·date so that they do not ,become junior to officers who have j6ined later with equivalent PG qualifications." A B C· D ;..- . E .Petitioners contend that denial ofthe oenefit of longer period. . ofante·dating the commission introduced by the amended Army Instruction No. 78 qf 78 which bec!lme effective from April I, 1978 to those. com.missioned officers wbo bad requisite post graduate qualificatiOns when they were commissioned prior to ApriLI, 1978, . is grossly discriminatory and the choice of date is, arbitrary It is ,·alleged that tbose,qfficers wbo·had· post grad11ate qualificati6n at. · the time of being commissioned in AMC whether they were com misioned prior lo J.4.78 or thereafter for the purpose of conditions of service and treat111ent from one ·homogenous class ·and by the arbitra~ choice of date, this homogenous ~lass is divided to pick and choose a,rbitrarily for the benefit of longer period of ante·dating ,the commission and the classifieation is not based on any intelligble tlifferentia and if tlti!re b~ any, it does not have any rational nexus , to the objects sought _to b~ achieved . ., It is further alleged that the choice of date for gtaoling the be\lefit .being thoroughly' arbitrary ,and is not explainable on any ratidnal hypothesi.s a.nd therefore, on · \hes•. l!l'ounds! the denia,I of. be11ef\t of extended period of a,nt~ , G . Ii . _-_..,' .. A B D .. , . ' E. F G IJ· 454 SUPREME Cl'URl REPORTS (19831 2 s.c.it, . those who were commissioned prior to 1.4.78 , commissioned prior those who were commissioned subsequent to dating to discriminatory and ii-is a denial of an equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and thereby violative of Art. 16 of the Consti.tutfon. It is alleged that in the matter. of ante-dating the commissson, there is no difference between those who had post to 1.4. 78 graduate qualification when that d11te. and therefore, the earlier entrants have- been treated with an evil ' eye and unequal hand and therefore this trea_tlilent is violative of the guarantee of _equality in the !Jlatter of employment. Petitioners have averred in the petition that the benefit of ante dating the comfuission to thase . who were commissioned after obtaining post graduate qualification irrespetiye of whether they hav . . commissioned prior to a certain date or subsequent to that in _.the matter of conditions or" service, cannot differently date; treated and they are entitled to same treatment irrespective of the date on whi~h the commission was granted. ~ .· ;., affect adversely are given on a ·1arge the · AMC and ·.would · disturb the In· the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it was speci fcaily contended that the benefit of ante-dating is granted at the time of being commissiened in AMC and it is an incentive for applied for being commissioned after attracting persons who It is further averred obtaining post gradute qualification, ~ven the old commissioned officers are given benefit of· larg~r . period of ante-dating,. it would number of officers seniority of number of, personit;. It was. further promotions averred that thilse commissioned offi~ers of AMC who have either acqµired service or who were merely M.B.B.S. at the ti"me of being commis sioned and tho_se who had post graduate qualification when cQ.111· missioned are all brought on a common seniot'ity list and on the basis of this ;:ommon seniority list, promotion to the higber rank is given. It was therefore, contended that if the· earlier", entrants. are now given benefit of longer period of ante-dating, it would disturb the seniority and promotional prospects -of a"large number of persons and this is unjust and unfair. Number, of charts have been learned Additional annexed Solicitor General showing that giving of benefit of longer perfod_ of thi, , post graduate qualification while to the written submi!;Sions by the basis of seniority. Il was' in the·. alleged ' , - . . \ . D.D. JOSHI P, UNION (Desai, 1,) 455 ante·dating the commission to the petitioners and those ·similarly situated would give them an underserved advantage. of jumping over a number of senior officers and the promoticlnal\ prospcet of many such persons would be adversely affected; The note at the foot of the Army Instruction No. 78 of 78 was explained by saying that since by the impugned Army Instruction the maximum period o.f ante-dating the commission is revised to 2-1/2 'years, if those , just above the marginal line meaniq,g those who were commissioned shortly prior to 1.4.78, if not protected, would be adversely affected by those entering just after the date and would score a march over the earlier entrants and to protect them, it was provided that the seniority of officers who joined with PG. qualification during the t .years prior to 1.4.78, will be protected by grant of requisite ante date so that they do not become junior to officers wbo have joined It was said that there is later with. equivalent P.G. qualifications. raiionale behind the note and it is incorr,ect to say that limited retrospective effect is given to the impugned· Army Instruction No. 78 of 78. At the outset, clear the grouhd by it is necessary understand fog what constitutes ante-dating the· commission. It appears that the basic minimum entry qualification for being com-· missioned in AMC is graduate degree such as M.B.B.S. Those who enter ·service with post graduate qualification such as post graduate cjiploma or post· graduate degree or tho.se who enter after )laving held an approved whole time appointment in a recognised civil hospital for a period "of not less than 6 months will .be given a deemed date of commission prior to the actual date of com mission depending upon the period for which under the relevant Army In~truction such person In other words, to have been commissioned such person would he at a date earlier than the date · on which be is actually com· missioned. This deemed date would be the date on whic!i to have· been commissioned and person concerned is deemed his s~niority would be reckoned from such deemed date. This is what is styled in the relevant Army Instruction as benefit of ante dating. is qualified. deemed ' The commissioned officers in the AMC fall·into three recognis- ed divisions : (l) those who enter with post graduate qualification, (2) those who acquire post graduate qualification after being com .missioned, and (3) those w)lo entet V.1!·1vf·B.B.~ .. a.nd n.eve£ acquire ' B c .D E G H . 456 SU!'RBMB COURT Rl!POltTS · (1983) 2 s.c.• any further post graduate qualification. It is not disputed that all the three are borne on the common seniority list because they form ed one class of commissioned officers in AMC. Further upward promotion is generally· based on this common seniority list. for whole The benefit of ante-dating is given to those who enter AMC with post graduate qualification and the benefit of an'ie-dating the commission is given at the time of bring commissioned and not later on. The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that this benefit of ante-dating commissions is in vogue from 1948 but the period has varied according to the decision of the Govern ment of India to provide incentive for entering AMC depending upon market conditions of recruitment. It appears that prior · to December I, 1965, maximum ante-dating admissible on acount time hospital of post graduate qualification and appointment was It years. From January I, 1966, it was reduced to one year. Government of India was again approached for enlarg ing the period of ante-dating admissible on account of the post graduate qualification. Accepting the proposai, the maximum period for ante-dating the commission was revised from one year to 2! years with ~!feet from April I, 1978 with the marginal adjustment to avoid any undeserved benefit being given to the later entrants over earlier entran1s to be adjusted as set out in the note appended It was however, strenuously to·the impugned Army Instruction. urged that this benefit of ante-dating was admissible at the time of appointment because it was ·an incentive and not a benefit being conferred for all those who have already entered AMC. This sub mission is borne out by the language iof the relevant Army Instruction. ~ Let us turn to the Army Instruction dated August 16i-.1948. Para (b) which is relevant for the present purpose provided that 'A candidate will be eligible for !he grant of an ante-date not exceed ing 6 months if he, at the time of selection is in possession of a post graduate Diploma etc.' The words 'at the time of selection' clearly connotes the stage when benefit is admissible and reveals the object underlying the benefit of ante-dating.' Similarly para 6(b) of Army Instruction No. 74 of 76 dated September 18, 1976 clearly provides that 'a candidate will be eligible for the grant . of an ante-date not exceeding 12 months if be, rat the time of Pf pointment is in p,~~s~"·!(on pf a post 1Jradu11t~ Di pl am°' in an:y c D. E F G H •· D.D. JOSHI v. UNION (Desai, !.) 457 ' branch ........................... ' Again attention should be focussed, on the expression 'at the time of appointment'. By the impugned amend ment by Arllly Instruction No. 78 of 78 dated November 4, 1978 wh11t is revised is the period, in eara 6(b) and 6(e) raising it to 12 monhts and 2 years respectively .retaining the condition of eligi· bility, namely, "•at the time of appointment:'·. )n this ~onnection, one can advantageously refer to para 6(c) of Army Instruction No. 74 of 76 whi~h provided that 'at the time of appointment, a candldatc wit! be eligible for grant of ante·date not. exceeding 2 years (now revised) in respect of higher qualifications obtained prior to appointment'. The expressions 'at the time of appointment' and 'higher qualifications obtained prior to appointment' provided a ter minus a quo for the eligibility of the benefit when the benefit of ante- dating can be granted and claim:d. On a plain grammatical construc- tion .of para 6(a), (b) and (c) of Army instruction No .. 74 of 76, there is no room for doubt that the benefit of ante-dating the commission will be available at the the time of being commissioned as an officer in AMC, i.e. at the time of appointment and the qualification· must have been acquired prior to joining AMC. If the language of a provisoli is clear, unambiguous and intelligible, and does not admit of two meanings, the Court is bound to construe it in its ordinary sense because it is well recognised that language used speaks the mind and reveals the intention of the framers. If the languliie of the statute is clear and unambiguous, and if two inter pretations are not reasonablly ppssible, it would be wrong to discard the plain meaning of the words used in order to meet· a possible (See The C.r.r., Madras v. M/s. T.V. Sundram Iyengar injustice. (P) Ltd.(1 ). In such a situation, it would be impermissible to call in aid any external aid of constrµction to find out the hidden mean ing. The cardinal rule fdr construction of a statute is that it should be construed according ~o the intention expressed in statute ·itself (see Capper v. Bledwin).('l) It would be presently pointed out that the 1 underlying intention object and purpose for granting the benefit of antedating clearly bears out the meaning deduced by literal cons truction. . benefit of ante-dating the commision. It is therefore necessary to go into the genesis of e.xtending this It is well known those who I (!) [1976] ! S.C.C. 77 at pp. 84-85. (2) (1965) 2 Q.B. 53@ 61. A B c D F G H 458 slJl'tl.EMil COIJRT UPOli.ts [ 1983) ·'.). s;c,R. ,pursue study for higher qualification in any branch of medicine after acquiring the graduate degree had· to put in formerly two · years and now nearly three years in acquiring post graduate quali fication. 'Jf the employer meaning the Union Government would get the benefit ,,f person who bas put in 2 to 3 years of advanced learning and,· training and is, therefore better equipped, he or she must be compensated in some measure. There would be qualitative differ~nce in the service rendered by a graduate entrant and an entrant with post graduate qualification. The time, money and energy expended in acquiring higher qualification is sought to be com pensated by grant of ante-dating benefit, therefore the benefit of ante-dating was devised and has be~n in vogue .. Obviously, this . benefit is to be given at the time of entering service. The recogni tion for the time, money ·and energy spent by an· entrant with post graduate qualification, compared to a graduate who enters AMC because of this minimum eligibility qualification is implicit in devis ing this benefit of ante-dating the commission. If the Union Government were to treat one who has the graduate degree on par with one who bas a post gr~duate degree both are brought on the common senirity list for further promotion, ol>viously. the person who spent sometime in acquiring post graduate\ qualification, the bene~t of which w0uld be available to the employer, would be at a comp'lirative disadvantage in the matter of seniority and futnre pro motion compared to one who came with only graduate qualification. It is this difference between a graduate entrant and entrant with post graduate qualification which was sought to b~ compensated by granting .the benefit of ante-dating the commission. The object, the puprose and the intention underlyh1g the provision was to com pensate for the extra time1 money and energy spent in acquiring post graduate qualification equipped with which the men enter service and this object, purpose or intention underlying the provision is clearly.manifest in the language used in the relevant paragraphs of the Army Instruction bearing on the subject by providing that eligi bility for gaining the benefit of ante-dating the commission, namely, having a post graduate qualification shall be taken into account at the time of entering the service.' Two pre-conditions have to be fulfilled before t~.e benefit can be acquired i.e. (I) the candidate must , have a post-gradute qualification obtained prior to appointment, and (2) that such qualification must have been acquired and must , b.e available at the time of appointment. Therefore, not only the language of the relevant provision leaves no room for doubt but the A 8- c D E F G H .-{ I ' . D.D. JOSHI v. JOSHI (Desai, J.) 459 object and intention underlying the provision clearly buttessed the .. meaning of the provision . r ) the commission If the benefit of ante'dating is not to be granted at the time of enacting the AMC to those who enter with post graduate qualification, bow would their case be differentiated or <listinguished from those who acquire post graduate qualification while in service. There is no qualit~tive difl'erence in the relative merit of a person entering service having acquired post graduate qualification and one who acquires the same after entering the service, of course, since. after acquiring the qualification. Yet the benefit of ante-dating is given to th'ose who enter AMC with post graduate qualification, and not to those who acquire such qualification after It may . be recalled that at present out of being commissitlned. approximately 4,400 commissioned officers of AMC, there are about · 154 commissioned officers who were commissioned after having acquired post-graduate qualification. As against this there are about 1227 officers of the AMC who acquired post-graduate qualification in service. The quality of serviee rendered by both having identical qualificatfon would not be materially different, and yet in the case of first, the benefit of ante-dating the commission is exten ded by the relevant Army instruction .while in the case of !after, no such benefit is given. This clearly establishes that the benefit of anti dating the. commission is to b• made available only to those who bad acquired post graduate qualification before being commissioned into the AMC. The rece'pient of the benefit gets seniority over earlier entrants and tbe seniority is determined; in the absence of another rule from the date of entry in the service or cadre. The seniority so acquired will enable such persons to be conside~ed for those over : whom they score a march by promotion earlier ante-dating the commission. It is thus abundantly clear that the benefit of ante-datini the commission is available only at the time of entering the AMC. A subsequent enlargement of the benefit cannot · be restrospectively made available to those who had already entered service and once availed of the benefit because their case thereafter those who acquired post-grad~ate would not be different from qualification after being commissioned as members of AMC. It was strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioners that all commissioned officers of AMC who entered AMC after acquiring post graduate qualification formed one homogeneous class and by B c D· F G 8 .}- ' . A. B c _D E F G 8 460 SUPREMB COURT RBPORTS [1983] 2 s.c.R. artificially selecting the date of April I, 1978 for entitlement of enlarged period of ante-dating compared to those who. had entered prior to that date has the pernicious tendency of dividing a homogeneous class into two compartments. · It was urged that · this classification is not based on any •intelligible differentia and it to be achieved by enlar has no rational nexus to the objects sought ging the period of entitlement. It was therefore, contended that the note at the foot of-the amended Army Instruction No. 78/78 which introduces discriminatory treatment in the matter of longer period of ante-dating the commission by denying the same to.those who that date and extending it only to those who entered prior to en~red subsequent ·to that date,. is violative of the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article I 4 and is a denial of equality of oppor tunity in the.matter of employment as guaranteed under Article .16 11ll therefore, being unconstitutional deserves to be struck down. A good number of deCisions of this Court were read to us. The deci sions on the scope and content of Article 14 are legion and to recall and of them would be merely an 'idle parade of familiar learning'. It is well-settled and not controverted on behalf of the respondents that Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid classifica It is equally well settled that in tion for the purpose of legislation. order to meet the least of Article 14, (i) the classification must be ba~d on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group; the differentia must have a rational nexus to the objects and (ii) sought to be achieved by the legislative or executive action under challenge. Does the enlarged period of ante-dating the commission made admissible to those who enter AMC after a certain date denying the same benefit to those who bad already entered AMC prior to that date, has the pernicious tendency to divide a homogenous class based on arbitrary criterion and not relatable to any intelligible differen(ia. One has to remember that an employer bas a right to grant incentive for attracting better qualified persons to the service offered by the einployer. If the i!lcentive is devised with a view to offering induce-· ment to those wavering whether to enter I\ certain service or, not, it is difficult to accept that .such incentive should also be extended to those who have already entered service and have. already taken full advantage of the benefit available at the time of entering service. In this case, it is clearly made out that the benefit of enlarged period b.I>. msm v. UNION (Desai, J.) \ 461 of ante-dating the commission for persons joining AMC after having . acquired post-graduate qualification was given as an incentive with ·a view to attracting more persons who have already acquired post· graduate qualification. Those who were already in service and had· that benefit · once, cannot be heard to say that this new incentive should be retrospectively enforced s~ as to give them the same bene It is difficuli to conceive that an incentive can be retrospective fit. though it is indisputable that conditions of service can qe restrospec tively made. And the unfairness of the approach of the petitioners becomes manifest from the fact that while maximum period of ante dating prior to December 31, 1965 was It years when petitioners entered AMC, which was reduced to one year effective from January I. 1965, none of them ever suggested that this b.eing a condition of service rbust uniformly apply to those who would be covered by the conditions of eligibility and thereafter the period must be reduced. But subsequently when the period of ante-dating was enlarged by the impugned Army Instruction which ·became effective from April I, 1978, it is now clamoured that this benefit must be extended to those who have entered AMC way back as early as November, 1949 and the petitioners and similarly situated persons in the process give a march over those who are already seuior to them in the common seniority list. A c D E F The degree of unfairness of the claim of petitioners·can .be demonstrably established by working out the position of·some peti the footing th~ each one oft.hem is entitled to longer tioners on period of ante-dating the commission. Isl petitioner Col. D.D. Joshi was commissioned· on July 25, 1954 and after obtaining the benefit of ante-dating then aviailable, he was put in the seniority list as if he bad been commissioned on January 25, J953. Now if he is given the benefit of ante-dating the commission by 2t years, his deemed date of joining the AMC would be January 25, 1952. Io the process, he would scope a march over 21 con-missioned officers who are already .senior to him in the seniority list. This. is equally true of G all the 7 petitioners but in the case of petitioner No. 3-Col. V.S. Sharma, he would score a march over 41 commissioned officers already . senior to him. One M.B.L. Sexena who is not one of the petitioners but who is similarly situated, if now held entitled to benefit of 2t years ante·dating, he would senior to him. 95 o!fi9ers already senior to him and a good number of thellj are jump over 50 commissioned officers H In the case of petitioner No. 7, he would supersede ' - ' .. .. " • j ' ' A B. c D B G H 462 SUPRBME COURT REPORTS (1983] 2 s.c.R. persons who had acquired post graduate qualification, of course, after incentive giving joining the service. Could one ever think of an such an undeserved advantage ? The answer is obviously in negative. The next question is does this incentive divide a homogeneous In the matter of incentive offered at .the time of entering the class? is no question of a homogeneous class. The new service, comers may become members of the class after being commissioned. They are outside the cadre before entrance. They do not belong to the class of existing members of the AMC. They derive the benefit of ante-dating simultaneously with becoming a member of A,MC. They do not get any benefit denied to others after becoming.the members as benefit of ante-dating is available at the time of appoint ment. There may be an enlargement of the cadre. There would be retirements. Recruitment and retirement are a continuous process. time will have to satisfy the Those who are recruited at the relevant conditions for recruitment then ip force and would be entitled to the benefits that may be available to the new entrants. If the principle canvassed for on behalf of the petitioners is taken to the logical end, it would lead to a startling result. Suppose a rule is now made· that only persons with post graduate qualification would be qualified for iµ AMC, can anyone contend that as in the being commissioned past mere graduates were recruited and therefore, ignoring the revised minimum eligibility qualification, a •graduate must be considered for recruitment. Therefore, in respect of benefits which are available for certain qualification at the time of entering the service, the same having been made available, a revision of the same at a. later date to attract fresh entrants cannot be retrospectively .claimed by those who had already entered service knowing full well the benefit then avail· able. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the note ~ppended to the;am.,nded Army Instruction No. 78/78 providing the benefit of enlarged period of ante-dating being made available to new entrants only will have the pernicious tendency of dividing a homogeneous class. It was then contended that the selection of the date April I, 1978 is thoroughly arbitrary and has no national nexus to the objects sought to ):le achieved ... Reliance was placed on Union of India & Anr. v M/s\Parameswaran. Match Works etc.(') In that case this Court (!) [1975) 2 S.C.R. 573. ' ' • • D.D. JOSHI v. UNION (Desai, J.) 463 quoted with approval the decision in Louisviile Gas Co. v. Alabama Power Co., (') wherein it was observed that the choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances of the case. In the is no division of a homogeneous class by the present case, there choice of the date. The object underlying the benefit extended to the new entrants determines the choice of date. Inducement for attrac ting fresh recruits from the market must come into force by a certain date. The employer can legitimately determine, keeping in view the the document will be demands of public service, from which date available. In such a situation choice of date· is uot wholly arbitrary · and has not the tendency to devide a homogeneous class. 'we see no classification amongst those who enter AMC after acquiring Post· graduate qualification determined by length of ante-dating bene fit because each one at the relevant time obtained the advantage of ante-dating as it was then fo force. There is no differential treat ment. There is no division of a homogeneous class. The distinct possibility is that if petitioner's contention is accepted there would be vertical splitting of a homogeneous class. It is therefore, difficult to accept that the note under the impugned atnended Army Instruction ·is violative of Art. 14 or Art. 16. the contention It was next contended that the Third Pay Commission recom mended that doctors entering service of the Union of India with post-graduate qualifications should be suitably recompensated for the time spent in acquiring these qualifications. It was urged that this recommendation was implemented in Central Government Health Service and it is this recommendation which has promoted the Union of India to enlarge the period of ante-dating. It was urged that by limiting the benefit only to th'ose who would be commissio· ned on or after April 1,11971, the respondents are guilty of according discriminatory t_reatment in the matter of public employment, and it is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on Purshotam Lal and Others v. Union of India & Anr (2 )., wherein this Court held that when a Pay Commission makes recommendations and the Government accepts the same, it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. And if it does not implement the report rellarding some employees only it (I) 240 U.S. 30. gl A,IR 1973 S.(;. JQ88, .... 8 c 0 G A 8 c D E F G H 464 SUPRBMB COURT RBPOQTS (1983) 2 S.C.R, commits a breach of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is diffi· cult to appreciate how this decision would help the petitioners. The benefit \!If ante-dating was devised long before the recom mendations of the Third Pay Commission were formulated and each petitioner got the benefit consistent with . the Army Instruction in force at the time of being commissioned in the AMC A subsequent enlargement of the period, not pursuant to the recommendation of the Pay Commission and held out as an inducement for recruitment the market cannot be claimed as a matter of right by those who have already availed of the benefit on earlier occasion. ~· ... It was then contended that if extending the benefit of enlarged period of ante-dating to all ;irrespective of the date of entry would the tendency of unsetting the seniority list, that should not weigh with this Court because on .such nebulous ground violation of constitutional mandate cannot be overlooked. Reliance was placed on General Manager, South Central, Railway, Secundrabad and Anr. etc. v A.V.R. Siddhanti &Ors.('). We again fail to see how this decision helps the petitioners. The fallacy underlying the submission is that this benefit of enlarged period of arite-dating is claimed as a condition of service uniformally applicable to all persons qualifying for the same ignoring the conditions under which it can be claimed. The conten tion overlooks the basic condiiion subject to which benefit can be the ser claimed and it is that it is available at the time of entering vice as a compensation for having a higher qualification compared to their simultaneously entering service with lower qualification. And undoubtedly an inducement held out to future entrants, if ex·· those who had entered more than 25 years ago, the tended to inducement so offered would adversely affect a large number of persons who need not be subjected to unfair treatment for no fault of theirs. There are hundreds of officers, in all 1227, who are hol ding post graduate qualifications today, may be having acquired the same after joining service but there being )lo qualitative difference them and those who entered with PG qualification, way-back in 1948 or 1949 or 1953, if the contention is the petitioners would score a march over others having accepted now the same qualificatiolJ tllereby giving th~ . p~titioners an 11nfair the service rendered by (1) [1974) 3 S C.R. 207. J . ..J ~- D.D. JOSHI v. (Desai, !,) 465 advantage which ought not to be given, if approaching the matter from that angle. would not violate any constitutional mandate. The next contention is that if giving the petitioners benefit of enlarged period of ante-dating would unsettle :a settled seniority list, the respondents have already given limited retrospectivity to the revi sed benefit by providing in the note to the impugned Army Instruc tion 78/78 that : "The seniority officers who joined with PG qualifi cations during 1-1 /2 years prior to 1.4. 78 will be protected by grant of requisite ante-date so they 'do not become junior to officers It was who have joined later with equivalent PG qualifications." urged that the provision in the note would benefit. some of those who joined with PG qualifications even prior to April I, 1978 in a limited 'A' In fact · way, and thus its retrospective operation is implicit in the note. There is no merit the provision this contention. demonstrably establishes fair. play in action. An illustr~tion would expose the fallacy underlying the submission. joined with PG qualification and six months full time service on 3 lst 'March, 1978, 'B' joined with the same qualification and eligibility on April 2nd, 1978. Both are wholly similarly situated. •A' would get ante-date benefit of 1·1/2 years and 'B' would qualify for 2! years. 'B' tbongh a later entrant with same qualifications would score a march over it is 'A'. This would be extremely unfair. To protect such cases, provided that those who joined with PG qualifications during 1-1/2 years prior to April 1, 1978 will be protected by giving of requisite ante·date to protect their seniority over later entrants who qualified for larger period of ante-dating. It is idle to contend that limited It is in fact retrospectivity is given to impugned Army Ia.truction. a case of marginal adjustment showing fair play in action. On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that if the contention of the petitioners is accepted which could compel the first respondent to re-settle the seniority list, those over whom peti· tioners and those similarly situated would score a march should have been impleaded as respondents and in their absence, no. relief can be this conter.tion for two in General Manager, South Central reasons : (i) Railway Socundrabad etc. would permit us to negative the contention, this being not a case of individual claim or claim of seniority by one · person against specified others, but a question of interpretation of a provision and which interpretation could be given because it would be \ljl)ding on the f!ni()l! of India, \h~ presence of q\b~rs is 1111n~~~~"' them. We would not accept the decision B c D E F G H 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1983] 2 s.c.R. sary. Union of India would have merely to give effect to the deci sion of this Court. Therefore, the absence of those who may by our interpretation be adversely affected in the facts and circumstan ces of the case need not be necessarily here and if the relief could have been granted, the same would not have been denied on the ground that proper parties were not before the court. But the second reason why we should not examine this contention is that we are not inclined to grant any relief and the matter ends there. Having examined the matter from all angles, we find no subs· tance in the contentions raised on behalf of the peiitioners and there fore all the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. S.R. Petition dismissed. 8 c