Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Sanapala Janardhana Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8874 of 2023 &CM APPL. 33531 of 2023
Decided On : 09-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Himanshu Gautam & Mr. Lokesh Sharma Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Ms. PrernaDhall, Ms. Tania Sharma & Mr. Mritunjay Mishra, Advocates, for the Respondents.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider specific rules and previous judgments when making decisions regarding No Objection Certificates for outside employment in the Indian Coast Guard.

Headnote:
NOC - Indian Coast Guard - Rule 27 & Rule 27A of the Coast Guard (General Rules) 1986 - The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of Rule 27 & Rule 27A of the Indian Coast Guard (General Rules) 1986 and the judgment in R.P. Yadav (supra).
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a job outside the Indian Coast Guard, which was declined due to not completing four years of service and not seeking prior approval. The petitioner had already put in five years of service and argued that securing an outside job would be beneficial for career progression.
Finding of the Court:

The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of specific rules and a previous judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of NOC due to not completing four years of service and not seeking prior approval, and the petitioner's argument for career progression.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the specific rules (Rule 27 & Rule 27A of the Coast Guard (General Rules) 1986) and a previous judgment (Union of India & Ors. Vs. R.P. Yadav, (2000)5 SCC 325).
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case and make a decision within four weeks, without being influenced by anything stated on merits in the court's order.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner impugns orders dated 06.10.2022 and 16.06.2023 whereby the No Objection Certificate sought for by the petitioner for job outside the Indian Coast Guard was declined and the representation of the petitioner was dismissed, respectively.

2. Petitioner had joined the Indian Coast Guard as a Navik on 08.02.2018.

3. The Ministry of Railways issued advertisement for filling up certain posts for which petitioner applied. Petitioner appeared in the qualifying examinations and qualified the same for the Railways.

4. As per the guidelines for grant of NOC for outside job of Indian Coast Guard dated 03.08.2017, any individual applying for a job had to apply for grant of No Objection Certificate prior to making the application. One of the conditions stipulated is that he should have completed four years of service in the Indian Coast Guard.

5. As per petitioner, when the advertisement was issued by the Railways, petitioner had not yet completed four years in service and as such he did not seek prior permission for applying for the said job as the same would not have been granted in absence of petitioner having completed four years.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in case petitioner would secure outside job, there would be substantial career progression as he has already been selected for the post of Commercial-cum-Ticket Clerk in Level-III in the South-Central Railways. He submits that even his age of retirement would increase.

7. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in WP (C) No. 7131/2023 impugning the order dated 06.10.2022. Said petition was disposed of on 23.05.2023 directing the respondents to treat the petition as representation and decide the same within four weeks.

8. Said representation has been disposed of vide order dated 16.06.2023 declining the same which has also been impugned in this petition.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Corporal Sandeep Kumar Shukla Vs. Union of India, 2012(193) DLT 144 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench was considering a similar rule in respect of Airman in the Indian Air Force. Relief was granted to the petitioner therein considering that petitioner therein came from a humble socio-economic background and taking an outside job would be beneficial for his career progression.

10. In the present case, representation has been rejected citing two grounds i.e. he has not completed four years of service while applying for the job and that he had appeared in the examination without seeking prior approval.

11. We may notice that as on date petitioner has already put in five years of service. With regards to the seeking of prior approval, case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Corporal Sandeep Kumar Shukla (supra). Securing an outside job would be certainly beneficial for his career progression and his service tenure would also be extended.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents relies on Rule 27 & Rule 27A of the Coast Guard (General Rules) 1986(hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to contend that no member of the Coast Guard has a right to resign of his own and the relief is subject to exigency of services and decision by the competent authority.

13. Rules 27 and 27A of the Rules read as under:

"27. Procedure for discharge/release or retirement on own request. - (1) A member of the Coast Guard may, in exceptional cases, obtain his discharge, release or retirement from the service on extreme compassionate grounds, i.e. in cases where it is clear that undoubted material hardship will be caused to the member of the Coast Guard or his family members by his retention in the service.

(2) The Central Government or the Additional Director General may, having regard to the circumstances of any case, permit discharge, release or retirement of an officer from the service before attaining the age of retirement. The question of discharge