S N PATNAYAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had joined as an Airman in the trade of Clerk GD in the year 1978, was promoted to the rank of CPL and then, in due course, as Warrant Officer on 9.8.2004 after clearing the necessary examination. The petitioner was posted to Air Advisor Department High Commission of India at London (UK) on 10.1.2004 for a period of three years i.e. upto 30th January, 2007. The appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of a selection. After his posting at London, the petitioner faced problems in regard to admission of his two daughters in the schools at London as academic session in London starts in the month of September of each year. According to the petitioner, he is governed by the Ministry of External Affairs circular dated 3.8.2006 which prescribes extension of tenure on educational grounds from 6 to 12 months in case of children of 10th and 12th class respectively. The copy of the said circular has been placed on record as annexure P1 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, his tenure of stay at London is to expire on 30.1.2007 and he had applied for extension on the ground of education of his elder daughter who is studying in class 10th. According to the petitioner, the child cannot even come to India as she would not be able to complete her GCSE if the petitioner is moved out of the Mission. On 12th June, 2006, the petitioner applied for extension of tenure which was rejected on 8.8.2006 and he filed an appeal against this order of rejection wherein he also informed the authorities with regard to the policy dated 19.2.1996 on the subject and gave example of some other persons to whom the extension was granted. However, the said appeal was also rejected vide order dated 19.9.2006. Aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner filed the present petition.

(2.) The respondents contested the relief claimed by the petitioner on the ground that they had taken a policy decision for not granting extension on educational grounds to the members of the air force attached to various Embassies and High Commissions. It was also stated that earlier some extensions were granted but after coming into force of the said decision, no extension had been granted on educational grounds. Besides this, it was stated that the petitioner was requested to exercise his options vide their letter dated 29.5.2006 but the petitioner did not exercise nor took proper and timely steps for protecting the educational interest of his children and as such, the petitioner cannot claim any relief now.

(3.) No doubt, in the letter written by the petitioner on 11.8.2006, the efforts put in by the authorities as well as the options given by them were duly appreciated. But the fact of the matter is that the petitioner could not take appropriate and timely steps to ensure transfer of his children within the time. The relevant part of the said letter reads as under-