Fresh empanelment under resettlement schemes is governed by the policy prevalent at the time of registration.

The Respondent, an ex-serviceman released from the Indian Army in 2003, initially registered with the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR) in 2008 for benefits under the DGR Security Agency Scheme

This registration lapsed due to non-renewal and the Respondent’s undertaking of civil employment, which constitutes a disqualification under DGR rules

On January 6, 2014, after leaving civil employment, the Respondent submitted a fresh application for registration and empanelment

He was formally empanelled on July 30, 2014

The empanelment certificate specifically stated that the agency would be governed by the Office Memorandum (OM) dated July 9, 2012

The Respondent filed a writ petition seeking to be governed by the older OM of 2006 instead of subsequent OMs from 2018 or 2021

A learned Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that the Respondent was similarly placed to those in Kulwant Singh Security Agency & Anr. v. UOI, who were governed by the 2006 policy

The Appellants (Union of India) challenged this order via the present intra-court appeal

1. Whether an ex-serviceman who re-registers for empanelment in 2014, after a previous registration had lapsed, is governed by the policy prevalent at the time of the original registration (2006) or the policy prevalent at the time of the fresh empanelment (2012)

2. Whether the DGR Security Agency Scheme constitutes a vested right or a transitional welfare measure subject to revised equitable distribution guidelines

The Court primarily applied the principle of policy supersession, noting that the OM dated July 9, 2012, was issued in supersession of all earlier instructions, including the 2006 guidelines

It relied on the precedents of CDR CSS Deopa v. Union of India (2014) and Raj Singh Kataria v. Union of India (2012), which established that DGR resettlement schemes are transitional welfare measures intended for initial civilian adjustment rather than permanent or vested rights

Furthermore, the Court applied the principle that subsequent registrations are mandatorily governed by the policy in force at the time of empanelment to avoid administrative inequity

The Court found that the learned Single Judge erred by failing to distinguish between the Respondent’s lapsed 2008 registration and his fresh 2014 empanelment

The Court observed that because the Respondent took civil employment, his 2008 registration ceased to operate

His 2014 application was a "fresh" request, as evidenced by his own letter to the DGR

Consequently, the empanelment certificate issued on July 30, 2014, explicitly mandated adherence to the 2012 OM

The Court reasoned that since the 2012 OM superseded the 2006 regime, the Respondent could not claim benefits under a defunct policy

The Court further distinguished Kulwant Singh, noting it was inapplicable as the Respondent’s empanelment occurred years after the 2012 policy came into force

The Court emphasized that welfare resources must be distributed equitably among all eligible ex-servicemen based on current seniority-based rotation rather than preferential treatment under outdated rules

The Court held that the Respondent is governed by the Rules of 2012 (and subsequent OMs of 2018/2021) and not the OM of 2006, as his valid empanelment only commenced in 2014

The writ petition was effectively dismissed, and no costs were awarded