T P RAJEEV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.35116 of 2004 has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent policy letter in NK/0110/1, dated 28.10.2003 along with the consequential drafting order for specialist qualification no.01/2004 reversion of the third respondent dated 19.3.2004 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner in ACM(D) cadre with all monetary benefits and privileges attached to the said position. W.P.Nos.16272 and 16273 of 2005 have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent impugned communication of reversion bearing No.DTG 021627/MAY along with the consequential letter of the third respondent bearing No.848/257 dated 4.5.2005 and to quash the same. W.P.No.26195 of 2009 has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in the impugned policy letter bearing proceedings No.NK0110/1 dated 28.10.2003 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner in Air Crew Men (Diver) cadre in the Coast Guard service. ) Common Order: W.P.No.30872 of 2004 was filed by one T.P.Rajeev, who was employed as a General Duty NVK in the Coast Guard Service in the year 1991. He was subsequently after giving basic training, allotted as Radio Operator in the General Duty Branch. The petitioner subsequently after having undergone Aircrew Diver course, was made as Aircrew Diver on 27.2.1997. Holding the said post of Aircrew Diver (ACD), he is entitled for monetary privileges after V Central Pay Commission. His monetary benefits were increased to Rs.3500/- per month with effect from 1.7.1997. This allowance was subsequently revised to Rs.7000/-. The petitioner was in service for more than seven years in the specialised cadre of Aviation as ACD in various units.

(2.) IT was stated that on 28.10.2003, a policy was evolved by the Coast Guard Head Quarters (CG HQ). By the aforesaid policy, the age limit including tenure was restricted. Therefore, in the light of the policy letter, dated 28.10.2003, the Director General, Coast Guard Head Quarters (DG CG HQ) curtailed the tenure. Hence the petitioner has come forward to challenge the same.

(3.) APART from these four writ petitions, one P.C.Rana filed W.P.No.35116 of 2004 challenging the policy made by DG CG HQ, dated 28.10.2003 and the consequential reversion order, dated 19.3.2004 given to him. That writ petition was merely directed to be posted along with connected matters. On notice from this court, a counter affidavit, dated 26.4.2005 was filed by the respondents.