IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
No. Jc- 581641m Sub Maj Clk (Sd) Manoj Kumar Pandey – Petitioner
Versus
The Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Lko. Court No.2 And Others – Respondents
WRIT -A No. - 8700 of 2023
Decided On : 05-01-2024
Extension of Service - Armed Forces - Army Rules, 1954, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence letter No. B/33098/AG/PS-2(c) dated 20th September, 2010, letter No. B/33098/AG PS 2(c) dated 05th May, 2020 - The court analyzed the applicability of the old and amended policies for extension of service and concluded that the petitioner's case fell under the old policy dated 20.09.2010. The court set aside the impugned judgment and order, quashed the order of discharge, and allowed the writ petition, entitling the petitioner to pension and benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Subedar Major in the Indian Army, sought extension of service, but his request was declined under the amended policy dated 05.05.2020. He was discharged from service on 31.05.2022, leading to the filing of the original application before the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case for extension of service fell under the old policy dated 20.09.2010, and the respondents' consideration of the petitioner's willingness under the amended policy was contrary to the deeming clause of the old policy. The impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the order of discharge was quashed.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner's case for extension of service should be considered under the old policy dated 20.09.2010 or the new amended policy dated 05.05.2020.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's case fell under the old policy dated 20.09.2010, and the respondents' consideration of the petitioner's willingness under the amended policy was contrary to the deeming clause of the old policy.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order, quashed the order of discharge, and held the petitioner entitled to pension and benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
(A) Introduction
1. The challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 29th of March, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No.649 of 2022, whereby, a challenge laid by the petitioner to his discharge from service on May 31, 2022 was dismissed..
(B) Factual Matrix
2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army (JAK RIF Regiment) on May 4, 1990. Subsequently, he was granted promotion to the rank of Naik w.e.f. 01st December, 1995; to the rank of Havildar w.e.f. 01st December, 1999; and to the rank of Naib Subedar w.e.f. 01st June, 2013.
3. While continuing to work as Naib Subedar in the Indian Army, he was diagnosed “Coronary Artery Disease-Interior Wall Myocardial Infraction (ICD-121.0)” by 92 Base Hospital and accordingly, he was downgraded to low medical category P3 (T-24) with effect from 08th October, 2013 to 25th March, 2014. Subsequently, petitioner’s case was reviewed, upon which his medical category was upgraded to P2 (T-24) w.e.f. 25th March, 2014 to 09th September, 2014 and thereafter P2 (Permanent) with effect from 09th September, 2014.
4. Apparently, even after placing the petitioner in low medical category P2 (Permanent), he was promoted to rank of Subedar Major w.e.f. 01st August, 2016. Again while he was posted with 119 MC/MF Detachment, he was promoted to the rank of Subedar Major Clerk (Staff Duty) w.e.f. 01st April, 2020. After assuming the rank of Subedar Major Clerk (Staff Duty), the petitioner was required to be screened for extension of service as per the provisions of Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence letter No. B/33098/AG/PS-2(c) dated 20th September, 2010. The procedure and criteria for promotion dated 20th September, 2010 reads as under:-
Aim. To screen PBOR for the grant of extension by two years.
Criteria. The following guiding principles will be adhered to while considering the grant of two years extension in age/service.
(a) Willingness of the Individual. An individual will be deemed to be willing for 2 years extension in age/service unless he submits his unwillingness certificate two year before his retirement date duly counter signed by OC unit.
(b) Medical Classification The medical criteria for 2 years extn in age/service will be same as for promotion in respect of JCOs and OR as laid down vide IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No. B/33513/AG/PS 2(c) dt 10 Oct 97. They should be in medical category ; AYE’. However personnel in lower medical category (both temporary and permanent) as a result of the circumstances indicated below would be eligible :-
(i) Eligibility upto Medical Category ‘CEE’
(aa) Battle casualties as defined in special Army Order 8/S/85 including those casualties in fighting against armed hostiles shall also be treated as battle casualties.
(ab) Personnel wounded/injured during deployment in ‘Op Meghdoot’,’Op Rhino’, ‘Op Rakshak’, ‘Op Pawan’, ‘Op Bajrang’, Op Bluestar’, ‘Op Cactus Lilly’ and other similar CI Operations involving fighting against Militants/ Terrorists and consequently placed in medical category CEE (Permanent/Temporary) will be treated at par with ‘Battle Casualties’.
(ac) JCOs/NCOs Wounded/Injured during battle inoculation, field, mine training using live ammunition and while handling/disposing live ammunition, explosives, bombs and Improvised Explosive Devices and placed in Medical Category CEE (Permanent/Temporary) will also be treated as battle casualties.
(ad) JCOs and NCOs who sustain injuries or are wounded as a result of accidental explosion of mines caused while laying operationally oriented mine fields or lifting or negotiating mine fields laid by the enemy or own forces in operational areas, near the international borders or the Line of control and consequently placed in Medical Category CEE (Permanent/Tempora
Kamraj Nadar Vs. Kanju Thevar : (1959) S.C.R. 583(602) : A.I.R. 1958 SC 687
AI
Dismissal for desertion disproportionate for long-serving employee overstaying leave due to illness with prior intimation, absent proper inquiry; substitute with deemed discharge upon 20 years pensio....
The discharge of a probationer must comply with procedural requirements, and insufficient assessment of performance leads to implied confirmation, while discharge based on unsatisfactory work isn't p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.