MAJOR BALDEV SINGH GULERIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the respondents to include the left out Army Medical Corps (Non -Tech) Commissioned Officer cadre for promotion to substantive cadre of different cadres/ corps, similarly granted to substantive cadre of the whole Army except AMC (Non - Tech) in terms of Vth Pay Commission Recommendation which has been implemented by the Government of India by letter No. -14(i)98/D(AG) dated 14th January, 2000.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, by the said order the revised years of service required for promotion to substantive cadre of whole Army except AMC (Non -Tech) Officers have been sanctioned by the Government of India and the petitioner 'spromotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (T.S.) is not being considered due to aforesaid non - inclusion of his name and the Junior officers who have lesser years of service have been promoted on the basis of the said order. The petitioner is thereby deprived of him valuable right of promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (T.S.), The petitioner 'scase Is that he is now holding a post of Major in Military Hospital, According to him, his date of commission and national seniority was 25th March. 1980 and he has completed the reckonable commission service of 20 years on 25th March, 2000. The Ministry of Defence. Government of India by its letter No. 14(1)98 (AG). dated 14th January, 2000 issued for the purpose of implementation of Vth Pay Commission Recommendation provides for granting substantive rank of Officers of Army, .Air Force and Navy. The said notification is in supersession of earlier existing order. The said letter has been made Annexure -1 to this writ application. According to him. the said notification was issued and the basis of recommendation made by the Office of DGAFMS. However, AMC (Non -Tech) Officers were not recommended under the said provision and as such, substantive promotion on the basis of the revised years of service granted to all other officers of Indian Army was riot extended to the said AMC (NT) Officers. Aggrieved by the said discrimination, the petitioner filed a representation on 18th April, 2000, to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence through proper channel praying inclusion of AMC (NT) Commissioned Officer cadre in the Vth Pay Commission Recommendation for grant of revised years of substantive ranks to officers of the Army. The petitioner repeated the representation again in the month of July, 2000 and even thereafter. But the respondents turned deaf ears to the said representations. The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ application.

(3.) WHEN the case is called out, Mr Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a very limited prayer in view of the statements made by the respondents ,in their counter affidavit. Learned counsel submitted that since the matter has already been referred to the competent authority, that should be disposed of by them. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ application is of the year 2000 and the counter -affidavit was filed after more than two years in the year 2002. It is now high time that the respondents should deal with the matter expeditiously. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is going to retire on 31st August, 2004 and the respondents should have disposed of at least the petitioner 'scase before his retirement in order to do justice with him.