A. K. SINGH Vs. ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the action of the Respondents in discontinuing the service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 08.07.2020 and a writ of mandamus to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Section Officer, with all consequential benefits, treating him to be in service from 09.07.2020.

(2.) Before proceeding to analyze and appreciate the controversy raised in the present petition, it is seemly to exposit the necessitous primary facts as averred in the writ petition. Retired from the Indian Army on 31.03.2011, Petitioner was offered appointment as Assistant in Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, after successfully clearing the interview conducted by a Committee of the Members of the said Tribunal vide letter dated 14.11.2011. The appointment was on reemployment on contract basis for a period of one year and was governed by Ministry of Defence, I.D. Note No.7(11)/2009-D(AFT) Cell dated 10.07.2009, whereby the Ministry had agreed for appointment of retired Government Servants to fill up unfilled posts in the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, after Department of Personnel and Training ("DOPT"), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, gave "no objection" to the said appointments. It was mentioned in the offer letter that service of the Petitioner shall be governed by CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and all other Government Orders issued from time to time.

(3.) Petitioner accepted the offer and joined as Assistant w.e.f. 21.11.2011. He was subsequently appointed as Section Officer on 22.01.2013. It is averred that Recruitment Rules for the various posts in Armed Forces Tribunal were never finalized from its inception in 2008 till 2018 and Respondent No.1 continued to appoint eligible persons on re-employment on contract basis, including the Petitioner, and his contract was renewed year to year. However, vide letter dated 03.02.2020, the Respondent No.1 instead of extending the term by one year, as per past practice, extended the term only for three months and subsequently, vide letters dated 04.05.2020, 29.05.2020 and 24.06.2020, only month to month extension was granted. No extension was, however, granted after 08.07.2020 and services of the Petitioner were discontinued.