SURESH CHAND YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.6.1991 by which he was discharged from service and also additionally prayed that action of respondents in not extending the term of his engagement be declared discriminatory and illegal and any rule which provides for non -extension of term of his engagement for the mere reason of offences which do not fall within the purview of serious misconduct be also declared illegal and unconstitutional.

(3.) SHRI R.S. Bhadauria, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents ought to have extended the engagement of the petitioner till he attained the age of 55 years. But the petitioner was discharged from service on completion of term of initial engagement of 10 years. He was refused extension without any show cause notice or without providing him any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has served Army and DSC for about 14 years 119 days and non -extension of term of engagement resulted in serious prejudice to him because he would now be deprived of pension because Rule 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part -I) requires 15 years as the minimum period of qualifying service for eligibility of pension. The learned Counsel argued that the so called red ink entries on the basis of which the petitioner was denied extension related to the year 1984 and 1985 and they could not be relevant in the year 1981 when the question for extension of the engagement fell for consideration of the respondents. In fact, the Commending Officer had forwarded his application to the competent authority with a favourable recommendation that there was no such entry in service record of 1985. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Major Singh v. State of Punjab 2001 Lab. I.C. 2116 and Delhi High Court in Ajit Singh v. Union of India 2001 Lab I.C. 3864.