K K SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises the question of applicability of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta Vs.Union of India & Another AIR 1987 SC 2354 to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application for pre-mature retirement on compassionate grounds on 1.4.1992. The case of the petitioner is that he was conveyed approval of his request for pre-mature retirement on 21.3.1993 whereas the case of the respondent is that the petitioner came to know of the order accepting his application for retirement prior to 22.3.1993 when the petitioner wrote to the respondent withdrawing his earlier letter dated 1.4.1992 seeking pre-mature retirement. The case of the petitioner is that he came to know about his retirement from 2.5.1993 only on 21.3.1993 and on 22.3.1993 he made an application for recalling the earlier application for pre-mature retirement.

(2.) Lerigthy arguments have been addressed by the respective counsel appearing for both the parties. Mr.Maninder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has contended that in terms of Article 33 of the Constitution, the rights conferred under Chapter III of the Constitution can be curtailed/modified and in support of his contentions he has cited Defence Services Regulations and argued that in terms of Regulation 104 of the said Regulations, the right of person serving in the army may be curtailed under Chapter III of the Constitution. Mr.Maninder Singh in support of his contentions has cited Regulation 105 and particularly subclause (e) of Regulation 105, which reads as under I -

(3.) Mr.Maninder Singh has contended that unlike Regulations, which were before the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta's case (supra), in the Army when application is made for pre-mature retirement an undertaking has to be given that person concerned will not withdraw his request after the same has been accepted. Mr.Maninder Singh has further contended that in Balram Gupta's case (supra), Supreme Court was seized with the interpretation of rules governing civil services and same parameters and yardsticks cannot be made applicable in the case of defence personnel.