MR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order may be read in continuation of the order dated July 24, 1992. Basically two arguments had been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it was contended that the petitioners claim had to be considered by the Central Government and could not have been rejected by the Chief of the Army staff. Secondly, it was claimed that the action suffered from the Vice of discrimination in asmuch as requests for release from army had been accepted in the cases, of various officers incorporated in Paragraph 11 of the petition while a similar request made by the petitioner had been declined without assigning any reason. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought a short adjournment to enable him to file a better affidavit. This affidavit was filed. In this behalf, it has been inter alia mentioned that the release of Major R.K. Narula, was approved due to has low medical category. In the case of the remaining two officers, it has been stated that "Capt. R. Khurana was allowed to resign only after refunding the training charges. In the case of Major R. Gupta (MR-4270), there was no bond stipulating any conditions. Thus the complete allegations to the petitioners that special favour was shown to these officers or mandatory rules were by-passed is totally without any substance". Mr. Randhawa, learned counsel for the petitioner, points out that Capt. R. Khurana had studied at the Armed Forces Medical College, Pune and his prayer for release was accepted even although the Government had spent a considerable amount of money of his education. Similar is the position with regard to Major R. Gupta.

(2.) No one appears on behalf of the respondents. It has not been shown as to how the petitioner case is different from that of Capt. Khurana or Major R. Gupta. If a person who has completed his education at the Government expense can be allowed to resign after refunding the training charges and another has been released merely because there was no bond, the petitioners case is in no way distinguishable. The petitioner had passed his MBBS examination at his own expense. He was also not under any bond. He suffered no disability different from the one applicable in the cases of Capt. Khurana or Major Gupta. In this situation, the action of the respondents is apparently discriminatory.

(3.) Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, I consider it appropriate to direct that the matter should be reconsidered by the Government of India and decided in accordance with law. The writ petition is according disposed of. The needful should be done within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.