S.C. Sharma vs Union Of India
2000 Latest Caselaw 297 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force as AC(U/T) in the trade of ACH/GD w.e.f. 17th November, 1972. He was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in the Air Force on 5th October, 1986 and completed his initial term of engagement of 15 years on 17th November, 1987. He was given this extension of service for another six years i.e. upto 17th November, 1993. When this period expired he was given another extension of service for a period of 5 years i.e. 17th November, 1998. In the year 1996 he applied for further extension of service for a period of three years. However this request of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 6th November, 1997 and order of discharge was issued on 25th November, 1997 discharging the petitioner from service w.e.f. 30th November, 1998. As the representation of the petitioner did not evoke any response he filed present writ petition in which he seeks direction that his case be considered for grant of extension for another three years w.e.f. 17th November, 1998 and he may be given consequential benefit.

2. It may be mentioned at this stage that the respondents had come out with the policy dated 6th November, 1995 regarding extension of engagement as per which on competition of initial term of extension of engagement a further period of six years is to be considered on merits of each case at the discretion of CAS and thereafter extension of regular engagement may be granted for a period of three years at a time by such shorter period as deemed fit upto the age of superannuation. The discretion of grant of extension in engagement has been delegated to Air officer (Incharge), Air Force Records except in specific cases which are exercised by Air Head Quarter. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reliance is placed on this policy letter dated 6th November, 1995 on the basis of which it is contended that grant of extension of service of any person in the Air Force would not be a inherent right vested in such individual and it is a matter of discretion of the respondents to be exercised in each case. It is further mentioned that in respect of the petitioner extension was not granted in terms of para 4(d) of the aforesaid letter date 6th November, 1995. As per para 4(d) extension of engagement is granted only to those who have passed all parts of their promotion examination which make them eligible for promotion to their next higher rank and this examination have to be cleared by the air men before submitting their application for grant of extension of their regular engagements which expires on of after 1st July, 1998. Since the engagement of the petitioner was expiring on 17th November, 1998 i.e. after 1st July, 1998 para 4(d) is applicable in this case. As he had not passed the requisite examination he could not be given extension.

3. The stand taken by the respondents is legal and justified. The discretion has been properly exercised in this case keeping in view the policy guidelines contained in letter dated 6th November, 1995 which is applicable in the case of petitioner as well. The contention of the petitioner that para 4(d) of the policy dated 6th November, 1995 is irrelevant in his case, has no force. This para clearly applies in his case as it applies to all those whose engagements are expiring on or after 1st July, 1998. The case is also squarely covered by the single bench judgment dated 26th August, 1998 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3117 of 1998 which was upheld by the decision of division bench judgment in LPA No. 416 of 1998 dated 24th September, 1998. The operative portion of the Division Bench judgment reads as under:-

"The learned counsel for the petitioner appellant referred to paras 915 and 917 of the Air Force Regulations. The Govt. of India may issue Air Force instructions vide pr. 915. The Govt. of India has issued such instructions which are called Terms and Conditions of Service of Regular Airmen of the IAF. Para 12 (ii) provides that on completion of 15 years regular service an Airman may be allowed, at the discretion of the CAS to extend the period of regular service. The CAS has issued policy guidelines governing its own discretion so as to avoid the charge of arbitrariness in the exercise of such discretion. Therein is laid down the mode of assessing the service performance of an airman so as to grant an extension or not. Such guidelines are not required to be laid down by the Central Government. They are laid down for the CAS and operate within the framework or para 12(11) of the Service Conditions as above said. The plea that the CAS has usurped the authority of the Central Government in laying down such guidelines is wholly misconceived.

The plea of violation of principles of natural justice has also to fail. Firstly, an extension in service is not as of right. A refusal to extend the service need not comply with principles of natural justice. Still an opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner consistently with the directions of the court. The petitioner can hardly complain of violation of principles of natural justice.

4. The present writ petition is therefore devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.