JAGDISH NARAIN LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force as an airman in the trade of AFSO on 9. 4. 63 for initial term of 9 years. His term was extended time to time. He was promoted to the rank of Junior Warrant officer in 1985 and was appointed to the substantive rank in 1990. Having completed 20 years of service he was ordered to be discharged vide order dt. 20. 3. 97 w. e. f. 30. 4. 98. THE petitioner made a request for further extension of service for a period of two years and 23 days to complete 55 years of age. His request for extension was turned down.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that while in service he suffered from Ankylosing Spondylosis in 1972 and was placed in the medical category `cee' (Temporary) and finally in the year 1980 he was placed in category `cee' (Permanent ). He presented himself before the Medical Board on 26. 8. 96 and the Medical Board opined that he would continue in medical category `cee' (P) and was fit for extension of service yet the respondents have not granted the extension. It has been averred that the petitioner contacted the disease while in service and this disability did not exist at the time he joined the service, and therefore, the disability is attributable to the Air Force Service. It has been stated that the authorities had recommended his case for extension of service but vide AFRO letter No. RO/2802/3/rw (Extn) dated 5. 3. 97 he was informed that his extension has not been accorded by the competent authority in terms of para 4 (c) of Air HQ letter No. Air HQ/40811/pa-III dated 6. 11. 95 and 9. 10. 96. To explain the delay it has been averred that in March, 1997 the petitioner had come to know that he would be discharged w. e. f. 30. 4. 98 yet he learnt through the news-papers that one of his known mates viz. Warrant Officer Rajender Prasad Dixit Trade Radar stationed at Air Force Station, Hindon, who had been denied the grant of further extension, has succee- ded in the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court and thereafter he approached him and obtained a copy of the order, and filed this writ petition. It has been averred that non grant of further extension of remaining two years in order to complete 55 years age of superannuation is unjust, unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary being violative of the policy of the respondents and Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have carefully considered the above arguments. It is not disputed that the petitioner was informed of the order of refusing extension to him in April, 1997. The writ petition has been filed after about a year. The delay has been explained in the manner that the petitioner on coming to know about the decision of Delhi High Court approached the authorities for extension of service in the light of that judgment but when no action was taken, he has approached this Court. Though, this cannot be a valid ground of filing writ petition with delay yet it is not proper to throw away the writ petition on this ground as the matter has been heard on merits.