UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAGPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by -

(2.) .The central government vide its order dated 13/2/19900 called upon the respondent to retire (sic resign) and on his refusal to do so, he be compulsorily retired from the service on payment of pension and gratuity as admissible to him. This order came to be challenged in a Writ Petition No. 2492 of 1990 before the High court and the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 18/5/1992 dismissed the same. The respondent preferred Special Appeal No. 83 (S/B) before the division bench of the Allahabad High court, Lucknow bench which came to be allowed vide order dated 8/2/1994, granting desired reliefs to the respondent. The appellants thereafter filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2787(W) of 1984 for further hearing in the matter, however, the same was rejected by the division bench vide its order dated 8/4/1994. The appellants have filed these two appeals by special leave assailing the legality of both these orders.

(3.) . It is a common premise that the respondent did not pass promotion examination Part B within six years of reckonable service i.e. by 17/6/1979 for his promotion to the substantive rank of Captain. He did not qualify the same until completion of thirteen years' reckonable service. It is in these circumstances that in terms of Army Rule 13-A, a show-cause notice was issued to him on 2/1/1986. The respondent filed his reply which was considered by the Chief of Army Staff who recommended his case as a special case to give him two more chances to appear and qualify Part B of promotion examination beyond thirteen years of reckonable service by the end of 1989. This order was issued on 24/8/1984. The respondent did not <PG>515 </PG> appear for Part B promotion examination and consequently a show-cause notice under Army Rule 13-A was issued to him on 19-8-1989. The central government after considering the recommendations of the Chief of Army Staff on 13/2/1990 issued an order calling upon the respondent to retire from service and on his refusal to do so, he would stand retired compulsorily on payment of pension and gratuity, if any, admissible to him. It was this order which was challenged by the respondent in the writ petition.