Kerala High Court
Sangappa Hudgiker vs Union Of India on 2 July, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13253 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SANGAPPA HUDGIKER
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAPPA PLOT NO 59, SHIVACHANDRA
COLONY(BEHIND SUPER FUNCTION HALL),
HUMNABAD,BIDAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA, PIN - 585330
BY ADV SHRI.ADI NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
2 THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF
INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS OF MOD(ARMY), SOUTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
3 OIC RECORDS
DEFENCE SERVICE CORPS RECORDS, PIN - 901277
4 PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
(PENSIONS) OFFICE OF THE PCDA(P), DRAUPATI GARH,
ALLAHABAD, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 211014
BY ADV SRI.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR.K.R., CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.13253 of 2025
2
2025:KER:48560
AMIT RAWAL & P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C)No.13253 of 2025
.......................................................
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V. Balakrishnan, J.
This writ petition is filed by the applicant in OA No.247 of 2022 on the files of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, challenging the order dated 23.11.2023 dismissing his application.
2. The applicant, an ex-serviceman, was enrolled in the army on 22.05.1972 and was discharged on 13.09.1974. Subsequently, he was re-enrolled in the Defense Service Corps on 27.11.1978 and promoted to Havildar during May 1986. But he was reverted to the rank of Naik during January 1987, stating corps surplus. Thereafter, he was included in the re-promotion list of Havildars but was denied re-promotion for the reason that he was in a low medical category. It is aggrieved by the reversion and denial of re-promotion; the applicant filed OA No.247 of 2022.
3. The Tribunal after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the OA. It is aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present writ petition has been filed. W.P.(C)No.13253 of 2025 3
2025:KER:48560
4. Heard Sri.Adi Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv. C. Dinesh, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reversion of the petitioner from the rank of Havildar to Naik is illegal and that eventhough, he was included in the re- promotion list, was not promoted along with the others similarly placed only because of him being in a low medical category. He submitted that the eligibility criteria for re-promotion should have been taken as per the date of the original promotion of the petitioner and not from the date of re-promotion.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He argued that it was the surplus strength of the paid acting rank of Havildar that led to adjustment by reverting them to the substantive rank of Naik, and the said act is within the framework of government policies. He also submitted that at the time of consideration of the petitioner for re-promotion, he had become ineligible since, he was placed in low medical category CEE (permanent), and the order of re-promotion issued was only subject to the fulfillment of the criteria for promotion.
W.P.(C)No.13253 of 20254
2025:KER:48560
7. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and materials on record, we find no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. At the outset itself, it is to be seen that even though the petitioner has contended that his reversion to the rank of Naik with effect from 01.01.1987 is illegal, he could not point out any material that would substantiate the same. On the other hand, the materials on record show that it was only because of a surplus in the strength of the rank of Havildar, the petitioner was reverted back.
8. As regards the re-promotion of the petitioner, it is to be seen that on the availability of a vacancy in the rank of Havildar, the promotion order of the petitioner was reissued with effect from 08.06.1987, subject to fulfillment of criteria for promotion. It is not disputed that the petitioner was downgraded to low medical category CEE (permanent) with effect from 28.03.1987, and that he had continued in that category till he was discharged on 30.11.1988. As per the policy laid down, vide IHQ MoD (Army) letter No. 94930/AG/PS-2(c) dated 20.12.1979, the promotion order will be implemented only if the individual is in the medical category of AYE or in cases of battle casualties upto CEE category (both temporary and permanent). In the present case, the petitioner has no case that he comes under the W.P.(C)No.13253 of 2025 5 2025:KER:48560 category of battle casualties. If that be so, we have no hesitation to find that the petitioner, who is admittedly in the lower medical category of CEE is not entitled for re-promotion.
Ergo, we find no error in the impugned order and this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Dxy W.P.(C)No.13253 of 2025 6 2025:KER:48560 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13253/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT- P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A NO 247 OF 2022 ALONG WITH ALL THE ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT- P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH ALL ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23 NOV 2023 IN OA NO 247 OF 2022.
EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. TYPED EXTRACT OF TYPED EXTRACT OF ANNEXURE A-1 IN EXHIBIT ANNEXURE A-1 IN P-1 EXHIBIT P-1 TYPED EXTRACT OF TYPED EXTRACT OF EXHIBIT P-3 EXHIBIT P-3