RAHUL SHUKLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent issued circular dated 22nd July, 1994 containing guidelines in the matter of prematureretirement/resignation" from service. It provided officers who have put in less than 20 years service can resign from service. Petitioner applied for the same but by impugned order his request was rejected. Feeling aggrieved he filed this writ petition.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Indian Army as Doctor in Army Medical Corps on 5th November, 1982. On 23rd March, 1993 he put up his papers seeking resignation on compassionate grounds. The respondent declined his. request vide letter dated 10th November, 1993. The request of resignation was repeated by petitioner on 23rd March. 1994 but the same was returned to him to supply additional inputs. Third time petitioner put up his papers on 6th June, 1994 thereby giving detailed reasons Inspite of the reasons furnished by him his request was not acceded to. The same was rejected on 15th February, 1995. However, on 24th August, 1987 respondent lay down guidelines for seeking premature retirement/resignation. Revised guidelines were issued on 22nd July, 1994. Respondent allowed release of similarly situated four officers. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was listed as C.W. 770/95. This Court held that the resignation of an officer could be rejected if it was not based on adequate and justified reasons. Thus the overriding consideration was officer's continuation in service for a specific period was necessary to meet the exigencies of service and alternative arrangement could be made. It was further held that even in such a case the application for resignation could not be rejected. It could only be held in abeyance. The Court found that respondent had not disputed the reasons stated by the petitioner in his application for resignation. These facts by the respondent were neither found false nor inadequate nor unjustifiable. Accordingly directions were given to the respondent to form an opinion about the period for which the petitioner's continuation in service was necessary and how much time it would take to make an alternative arrangement. That petition was allowed and the Division Bench ordered that the case of the petitioner be considered afresh with sympathy and compassion. By the impugned order of 6th October, 1995 the request of the petitioner has been summarily rejected without assigning any reasons, hence this petition.

(3.) At the outset, it must be mentioned that the Division Bench while considering the request of the petitioner to be released from the Army Service took note of all the relevant provisions of the Regulations for the Army governing the condition of service of the petitioner and in particular Regulations 104(d), 105(a), (f) & (g).