KUNJUMON FRANCIS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case of the writ petitioner, in short, is that he joined the coast guard service as Navik (GD) with effect from August, 1,1997, and completed the basic training from August 4, 1997 to January 25, 1998. On completion of the said training, he was allotted Aviation Branch with specialized Trade AH-III (Aircraft Handler). He completed his sea training during the period from January 26, 1998 to March 1, 1998. The AH-III course was completed from SFNA (School for Naval Airmen), INS Garuda at Kochi from March 2, 1998 to July 18, 1998. The petitioner was posted at CGAS (Coast Guard Air Station) at Daman. The petitioner during his tenure as CGAS was asked to opt for diving course to become Ship Diver. He has undergone such diver course and become a ship diver. He was benefited with an allowance of Rs. 200/- per month in his salary. Thereafter, he was also asked to opt for other course of Air Crew Diver and he opted for such course. After successful completion of such course, he joined as Air Crew Diver (ACD) on September 27, 2003 and accordingly, was inducted to the permanent cadre of Air Crew Diver.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that from the letter dated March 18, 1988 and April 9, 1988 issued by the Coast Guard Headquarter, it is clear that the ACD in the Coast Guard would continue to be deployed for diving duty so long as they are medically fit. It is the case of the petitioner that the two other ACDs filed writ petition earlier and fought for their legitimate claim against the arbitrary action of the respondent authorities terminating them from the specialized cadre, before the Honble Court, but, the respondent authorities submitted before the Honble Court that the tenure of 7 years applicable to Naval Sailors vide letter dated April 18, 1986 was also applicable to Coast Guard ACDs. Reversion of ACD sailor is carried out in the Indian Navy after 7 years of service in accordance with Ministrys letter dated April 18, 1986. The coast guard has now adopted the same procedure of reversion from October, 2003 and thus the claim of the previous ACM(D) had been rejected to continue in specialist cadre so long they were medically fit. The petitioner has contended that by virtue of letter dated April 28, 2008 issued by the Ministry of Defence, the petitioner has the full specialist qualification as a permanent cadre in the Naval Airmen branch with effect from April 30, 2008. The coast guard has adopted the same procedure as applicable in Indian Navy and in view of the amendment in Indian Navy implementing permanent tenure for ACM(D) till they are medically fit, the coast guard is also required to amend the tenure of ACD cadre. It is contended that the petitioner is 33 years old and he is expected to continue another 15 years since he is medically fit and the respondents can utilize his experience as well. The petitioner has made representation for amendment of service tenure for ACD as it is amended by the Indian Navy.

(3.) The respondents have filed the affidavit-in-opposition, contending, inter-alia, that previously a policy decision was taken by the coast guard headquarter, New Delhi on April 19, 1988 that ACD in coast guard would continue to be deployed for daily duties so long as they are medically fit. But subsequently, in October 2003 by letter dated October 28, 2003, the policy was taken that the tenure of ACD would be 7 years. It has been contended in the affidavit-in-opposition that the prevailing tenure based policy of 7 years has also been ratified by the Ministry of Defence letter dated July 22, 2008 and in view of the latest policy decision of the Govt. of India, the petitioner is not entitled to get permanent tenure as ACD in the coast guard.