( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 22, 1999 passed by K. Ramamoorthy, J. The respondent who served the Indian Army for more than 27 years sought premature retirement on the ground that he is to look after his mother afflicted with cancer and his father, a retired Airforce Officer, who is visually handicapped. The respondent has given full particulars of the facts as well as other instances where officers similarly situated have been permitted to retire prematurely in his writ petition. However, the request of the respondent was rejected by Adjutant General and as a consequence he filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court.

( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge dealt with the question by First holding that it is the Central Government which is Competent Authority to deal with the acceptance of the premature retirement of the respondent. However, for the purposes of administrative convenience Adjutant General is given the power to consider and reject the same. It may not be necessary to deal with the question as it is no longer in dispute. The learned Single Judge next referred in paragraph, 8 of judgment the circumstances which led to the respondent to seek premature retirement which will indicate the facts of the case may be referred to as below:

"that, the petitioner ventures to bring to the notice of the Hon ble Court that the respondents have invidiously discriminated the petitioner in the matter of acceptance of his request for PR in as much as only in the last one year, similar requests made by three similarly placed officers, who were specialists in different disciplines and were posted in the Army Hospital along with the petitioner were accepted in the first instance itself. They were:- (i) Lt. Col, Arun Kumar: A Specialist in Medicine and Super Specialist in Gastroenterology with 24 years service on the ground of his father s illness (Cancer), the same disease with which petitioner s mother is afflicted. (ii) Lt. Col ATK Rau-: A Paediatrician with 18 years of service and his request too was accepted in the first instance. The ground was the properly problems. (iii) Major R. K. Bhardwaj: An ENT specialist with 16 years service was allowed to quit the service prematurely on account of his father s affliction with Cancer (the same disease with which the petitioner s mother is suffering from ). It is pertinent to point out that all these three officers were not only Specialists but also super, specialists in their respective disciplines which qualification they had acquired at the expense of the Govt. On the other hand the petitioner is not a specialist nor has he acquired any qualification at Govt. expense. Despite that the respondents chose to accept their request and reject that of the petitioner. There cannot be a worse case of arbitrariness and colourable exercise of power by the concerned authorities. "

( 3 ) THE appellants, admittedly, did not dispute the factual averments made by the respondent as well as his obligation to his parents but merely contended that his services were required as they are short of officers in the field of the respondent who is a post graduate in Hospital Administration. In the meanwhile the mother of the respondent who was afflicted with Cancer has expired and he is left with his blind father to take care of and look after in his old age.

( 4 ) THE writ petition of the respondent was allowed as the appellants did not dispute the factual position and his right to seek premature retirement. The order rejecting the request of the respondent for premature retirement was, accordingly, quashed and the appellants were directed to intimate to the respondent on or before 30th April, 1999 from which date his premature retirement would be accepted. The appellants did not take any action consequent to the order passed in the writ petition but filed this appeal in this court which is time barred by a period of 62 days. There is no suf