SHUKUL TYAGI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Helicopter pilot in Indian Air Force currently having attained the status of Sqn. Leader seeks premature retirement from service on the ground of extreme hardship because of matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife as according to him they have hardly lived together, both being employed, former in Indian Air Force and latter as a dental surgeon in Haryana State Services. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to retire the petitioner from service on the ground of conjugal disharmony.

(2.) Brief facts, necessary to deal with this writ petition are as under:- (a) The petitioner was selected as pilot officer in the Indian Air Force after successful training and was commissioned in the year 1993 and rose to the rank of Sqn.Leader having specific duties of flying helicopter. (b) In the year 1996, the petitioner married Dr.Mamta Tyagi who was employed with Haryana Civil Medical Services as a senior Dentist at that time. (c) It is stated in the petition that during the period of eight years petitioner had six postings at various places and thus had hardly any occasion to live with his wife and two children. This led to serious matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife as neither the petitioner nor his wife were able to stay together because of exigencies of their services. Because of long separation, the petitioner's wife served a legal notice for dissolution of marriage on account of the cruelty caused to her for non-cooperation of the petitioner. (d) The petitioner made an application for premature release from Air Force on extreme compassionate ground as per Human Resources Policy dated 7th March, 2003 issued by respondent No.2 i.e. the Chief of Air Staff which resulted in its rejection thus necessitating the petitioner to file the instant writ petition.

(3.) It is averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that similarly and identically situated officers with similar difficulties and hardships were given premature discharge on compassionate grounds. Details of such officers find place at Para 3.12 of the writ petition. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents have turned down the prayer of premature discharge of the petitioner without assigning any reasons. The petitioner while placing reliance on the policy dated 7th March, 2003 pleaded that such policy favours the petitioner but the respondents arbitrarily and discriminately rejected the case of the petitioner.