O R D E R

IA NO.79019 OF 2021 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2016

1. At the outset, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants submits that leave may be granted to withdraw the present application while reserving the right of the applicant to seek appropriate legal recourse before the appropriate forum as may be available under the law.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by geeta ahuja 2. Leave as prayed for, is granted.

Date: 2024.09.02

10:01:13 IST Reason:

3. The application is dismissed as withdrawn.

1. The appellant-Union of India is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th May, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in an intra court appeal1 preferred by the respondent against an order dated 04th January, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. In the writ petition2, the respondent-writ petitioner sought directions for quashing the letter dated 19th November, 2003 issued by the appellant No.3 declining to entertain his request for being treated as an Ex-service man and further to declare that he is entitled to all the benefits and facilities that are extended to an Ex-service man in the Indian Army.

2. The said petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the respondent who was an employee of the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) was only required to be treated as a member of the Armed Forces for the purpose of discipline in terms of Article 33 of the Constitution of India. However, the terms and conditions of appointment and service of GREF personnel was different as compared to the Armed Forces personnel. Even the retirement age of the GREF personnel is 60 years, therefore, the respondent-writ petitioner could not be treated at par with the employees of the Armed Forces for extending him benefits post retirement as are enjoyed by members of the Armed Forces.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, when the respondent-writ petitioner

1 Writ Petition No.245 of 2007

2 Writ Petition No.52243 of 2003 approached the Division Bench, the writ appeal filed by him was partly allowed and the appellants herein were directed to extend the benefits of hospital and medical facilities to the respondent. It was also noticed that the appellants have already extended the benefit of canteen facility and reservation of seats in a Sainik School to the respondent-writ petitioner and therefore, there was no logic in denying him hospital and medical facilities.

4. Much water has flown under the bridge by now, it is stated that the respondent-writ petitioner has attained the ripe old age of 94 years. Given the fact that the relief in the impugned judgment has been confined to the respondent alone, we do not propose to interfere in the impugned judgment.

5. The appeal is disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.

6. However, the question of law raised in the present appeal is left open for adjudication in an appropriate case, if considered necessary.

7. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1247 OF 2016

1. We have perused the impugned judgment dated 20th February, 2014 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi3 disposing of an Original Application4 filed by the respondent whereunder he had sought relief of declaring him as an Ex-service man and for grant of benefits admissible to Ex- service men such as issuance of Identity Card, canteen facility and medical

3 For short ‘the Tribunal’

4 O.A. No.115 of 2012 facilities. Pertinently, the respondent was serving in the Defence Security Corps and was discharged from service on 30th November, 2011 on attaining the age of superannuation.

2. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal observed that there was no relevant material produced before it as to the purpose for which the Defence Security Corps was constituted and the duties performed by the members of the Corps. Therefore, in the absence of such material information,