IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Reserved on: 25.11.2024 Pronounced on: 07.01.2025 Vipan Lal .....Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Argued by: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate with Ms. Roopam Atwal, Advocate and Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Bhavana Datta, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 – UOI.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J .

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein prays for setting aside the relevant part of the order dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) as passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned.

Factual Background

2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 07.10.1998 and attained the rank of Havildar. He qualified the promotion course for promotion to Naib Subedar 'Junior Commissioned Officer'. Despite qualifying the said course, the petitioner was not promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar, whereas, his juniors were promoted, for the reason that the petitioner did not fulfil the laid down criteria. As per the policy, minimum two of the last five Annual Confidential Reports of the soldier concerned, were required to become earned in a “Regimental Appointment”, whereas, the petitioner had only one such report.

3. Feeling aggrieved from the afore, the petitioner filed Original Application before the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned, rather praying for grant of promotion to the post of Naib Subedar. The said O.A. became dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2024.

The operative part of the order is extracted hereinafter.

“8. In the facts of this case, the principle of estoppel will apply to the applicant rather than the respondents.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the present Original Application has no merit and is dismissed.”

4. Aggrieved from the afore dis-affirmative order, the petitioner has filed thereagainst the instant writ petition.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and inferences of this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per paragraph No. 4 of the master policy dated 10.10.1997, contents whereof become extracted hereinafter, in order to safeguard the promotional prospects of army personnel, they were required to be not detailed on Extra Regimental Appointment, and only such personnel were to be sent to ERE, whose promotional prospects theretos rather become not affected. Moreover, even if such personnel become sent on ERE, yet they were to be reverted to 'Regimental Duty', wherebys they would become eligible for promotion.

4. In order to safeguard the promotion prospects of such Personnel on ERR, the following measures will be adopted :-

a) JCO/NCOs who are expected to get promotion to higher ranks during the period of their terms on ERE should not be derailed on ERE.

b) Only junior JCOs/NCOs whose tenure on ERE will not interfere with their promotional prospects should be posted on ERE.

c) Only those JCOs/NCOs who have already earned Regimental/Instructional report(s) in the rank held as per the criteria should be posted on ERE and be reverted to Regimental/Instructional duty well in time to remain eligible for promotion.

d) The tenure of Clerks (GD) on ERE with Army HQ may be allowed upto 4 years provided the promotional prospects of the JCOs/NCOs concerned do not suffer adversely owing to their not having earned the requisite Regimental/Instructional report (s) in the rank held.

6. Further, it has been averred that the mere excuse, that the petitioner was sent on ERE, on his own request owing to his wife's illness, could not absolve the respondents from adhering to their own policy, as there is nothing on record to show, that the petitioner was informed about the fact, that he would not be promoted in case he opted for a ERE appointment, thus for taking care of his wife's illness. Consequently, since an imperative duty became cast upon the respondents, to, in terms of the policy (supra), thus