SURESH PAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law arise for consideration in these writ petitions which shall stand disposed of by this common order. The question precisely is whether the denial of extension of two years in service to the petitioners is legally valid especially when the said denial is based on what is known as "Red Ink Entries" made in the service records of the petitioners and whether the norms stipulated by the Army Headquarters making the said "Red Ink Entries" relevant for purposes of extension of service are irrational or arbitrary. The controversy arises in the following circumstances :

(2.) The petitioners were at the relevant time Junior Commissioned Officers serving as Naib Subedars, Subedars and Subedar Majors in the Indian Army hereinafter referred to as persons below officers rank or PBORs. In terms of Regulation 163 of the Regulations for the Army, 1987, a Naib Subedar retires upon completing 26 years of pensionable service or attaining the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier. Subedars similarly retire upon completion of 28 years of service or 50 years of age, whichever is earlier. In the case of Subedar Majors, the retirement falls due upon completion of 32 years of pensionable service, 4 years tenure or 52 years of age, whichever is earlier.

(3.) As a sequel to the recommendations made by the Fifth Pay Commission, which included enhancement of the retirement age of the civil servants by two years, the Ministry of Defence, Government of India formulated and published a policy on 3rd September, 1998 prescribing revised terms of service/tenure and age limits for retirement for JCOs and NCOs serving in the Armed Forces. The policy declaration made in terms of the Circular dated 3rd September, 1998 issued by the Ministry made the service of PBORs extendable by a period of 2 years after screening of the candidates. Regulation 163 of Regulations for the Army, 1987 stood modified to that extent. The policy circular also envisaged issue of administrative instructions by the Chief of the Army Staff, which came in the form of a circular dated 21st September, 1998 issued by the Army Headquarters, stipulating the procedure and prescribing the criterion for screening of PBORs for the grant of extension. The screening had to be held on Unit/Regiment/Corps/Records Office basis. The procedure and criterion for the same was set out in the appendix to the circular. Para 4 of the Circular is in this regard relevant and reads: