Delhi High Court
Sub./Lt. Hrishikishan Nair vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 April, 2007
Equivalent citations: 0 (2007) DLT 0
Author: T Thakur
Bench: T Thakur, S Aggarwal
ORDER
T.S. Thakur, J.
1. The petitioner was working as a Subedar in the Indian Army till 26th January, 2007 when he was given the honourary rank of a lieutenant. He was in the ordinary course to retire from military services on 30th April, 2005. He appears to have expressed his willingness to work for another two years in terms of the prevalent scheme which envisages such extended service provided he fulfilll the criteria prescribed for such extension. He was upon consideration granted extension for a period of two years which was later withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner had suffered red ink entries in the year 1990 in the rank of a Naik. Aggrieved by the said withdrawal of extension, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in which he has not only challenged the orders declining extension to him but also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to continue him in service up to 30th April, 2007.
2. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which they have tried to justify the refusal of extension to the petitioner. We are not however required to examine the merits of the contention urged on either side having regard to the fact that the petitioner has on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court on 30th June, 2006 continued in service till date. Ms. Barkha Babbar counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the extended period which the petitioner claims in the petition has already expired, this writ petition has become infructuous and can be disposed of as such, particularly when she has instructions to state that the respondents would not seek recovery of the emoluments received by the petitioner during the period he has worked with the Army.
3. Mr. Trivedi, counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that position. He submits that so long as the petitioner's service over the extended period is taken to his benefit for all intents and purposes, the petition could be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
4. In the circumstances therefore and keeping in view the submissions made at the bar, the writ petition has indeed become infructuous on account of lapse of time. The petitioner has, as noticed earlier, served for the extended period up to 30th April, 2007 beyond which he has no subsisting right to continue. He has even received the emoluments for the work which he has done during all this period. The question of recovery of the emoluments from him would not have even otherwise arisen especially when the petitioner has earned the emoluments by doing the work assigned to the post that he held during this time.
5. In the circumstances, therefore, the extended period of two years service shall deemed to have ended as on date and the interim order granted against this Court is vacated. The writ petition is, with that direction, disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
