UNION OF INDIA Vs. R P YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The question that arises for determination in these appeals is whether an Artificier Apprentice of Indian Navy who has been given a re-engagement for a certain period after obtaining his consent for it is entitled to withdraw the consent and demand his release from the force as of right Another question which also arises is what bearing the decision of this Court in Anuj Kumar Dey v. Union of India, 1997 (1) SCC 366 on the above question.

(3.) In the appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 9839 of 1999, the respondent R. P. Yadav has already been released from the force in compliance with the direction of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment. Indeed in the Order dated 14-2-2000, this Court recorded the submission of Mr. Soli J Sorabjee, learned Attorney General for India, that so far as the respondent R. P. Yadav is concerned, the Union of India is only interested in having the question of law decided and even if it is decided in favour of the Union of India, they will not deny the benefit which R. P. Yadav has claimed in this petition. The period of re-engagement granted in the case of R. P. Yadav has also expired. But in the case of Raj Kumar, the respondent in the appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 16848 of 1999, the period of re-engagement granted to the said respondent is due to expire on 31st January, 2002. Therefore, it will be convenient to refer to the relevant facts in the case of Raj Kumar that is the civil appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 16848 of 1999.