INDERA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined IAF as an airman as Mechnical Transport Driver on the 24/8/1977. He was promoted to the rank of Corporal in 1982. In 1992, he was granted 6 years extension of service. On the 2/8/1995, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. On the 24/10/1996, the petitioner applied for extension of service for the second lime. In February, 1997, the petitioner again applied for extension of service w.e.f. September, 1998. In May, 1997, the petitioner's request for extension of service was rejected. In September, 1997, the petitioner again reminded that he has requested for extension of time because he has cleared the JWO Exams, which was the reason for rejection of <PG>375</PG> extension of service in May, 1997, and therefore, his case for extension of service can be considered. On the 7/10/1997, the petitioner received intimation that he is to be discharged from service w.e.f. 31/8/1998. In May, 1998, according to the petitioner, he was informed orally that his statutory representation had been rejected as per the policy dated 6/11/1995. According to the petitioner, JWO P.R.Sharma (now Warrant Officer) was given promotion after he was found 'Below Grading'. JWO M.I.Ansari was given three years extension w.e.f. 23/6/1998 who was earlier placed in 'Below Grading'. JSO S.P.S.Yadav was granted three years extension, who was earlier also placed in 'Below Grading'.

(2.) . It is stated in the petition that the policy dated 6/11/1995 is illegal. It had been issued by an authority who did not have the power. The policy is discriminatory and it makes distinction between officers and airmen, and the respondents are guilty of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain his 'below grading' and stigma is attached to the order of discharge.

(3.) . In the counter-affidavit, the allegations of the petitioner are controverted. According to the respondents they had acted in accordance with law. The policy dated 6/11/1995 had been issued by the authority who was competent to issue the same. The petitioner cannot claim extension as a matter of right. The respondents had to consider the several persons claiming extension of service and some formula had been evolved for short-listing the airmen. It is only on that basis the extension of service was granted or refused. The action of the respondents is perfectly legal. The petitioner cannot claim the extension of service on the basis that there is a stigma attached to the order of discharge. CW 3396/98