B K SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who superannuated on 31 August 1992 as Subedar Major/Office Superintendent in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short the CRPF), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from treating the petitioner as superannuated. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is sought directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service from 31 August 1992 with extention of service by 5 years.

(2.) In all there are three respondents. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, is the first respondent, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Director General, CRPF are the second and third respondents respectively.

(3.) The petitioner joined the CRPF as Lower Division Clerk and was thereafter promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the year 1962. These were civilian (non- combatisation) posts for which the age of superannuation was 58 years. It appears that in the year 1981, the petitioner opted for combatisation post and as a result thereof, in 1984, was promoted as Subedar Major/ Office Superintendent and continued to work on that post till 31 August, 1992, when, having attained on 2 August 1992, the age of 55 years, the normal age of superannuation for the personnel falling in the combatisation stream, he retired. The grievance of the petitioner is that he having rendered momentous, sincere and fearless service, particularly in the terrorists infested state of Jammu and Kashmir for more than two years, fighting bravely against the militants who had once abducted him while he was on duty and had tortured him for 15 days, he is entitled to an extension in service by five years, which to the utter dismay of the petitioner has not been granted. It is claimed that the ordeal which the petitioner underwent for 15 days when he was kept as a hostage by the militants and the circumstances and the conditions under which he performed his duties diligently during the period he was posted in the State of Jammu and Kashmir makes the case of the petitioner as rarest of the rare falling squarely within the ambit of Rule 43 of the CRPF Rules, entitling him to an extension for a period of 5 years. In the alternative, it is pleaded that the petitioner's request, made sometime in 1992, for decombatisation should have been considered, enabling him to continue in service at least up to the age of 58 years. It is alleged that no satisfactory answer has been received by the petitioner to the various representations made by him to the respondents, including the President and Prime Minister of India.