Praveen Kumar vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4894 Del

i.22
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                          Date of Decision: November 30, 2009

+                       W.P.(C) 13420/2009

       PRAVEEN KUMAR                ..... Petitioner
           Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Advocate.

                      versus

       UOI & ORS                    ..... Respondents
            Through:       Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, Advocate
                           and Mr.Chitranshul Sinha, Advocate for
                           respondents No.1 to 5.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
        allowed to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             No

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
        Digest?                                   No


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Whereas learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5

appeared on 25.11.2009 when the writ petition was listed for

preliminary hearing since advance copy was served, noting

that none appeared for respondent No.6 notice was issued to

respondent No.6 returnable for today.

2. None appears for respondent No.6 inspite of

service.

3. Respondent No.6 is a proforma party and hence we

require no pleadings to be completed by respondent No.6.

4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 states

that all facts have been truthfully and correctly stated by the

petitioner in the writ petition and since respondents No.1 to 5

desire no fact to be brought to the notice of the Court, counter

affidavit is not to be filed by respondents No.1 to 5. Counsel

states that the writ petition can be disposed of on the

pleadings as contained in the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the parties state that in view of

the urgency attracting the prayer made in the writ petition the

same may be disposed of today itself.

6. Rule DB.

7. Heard for disposal.

8. The issue is short. As per AFO 14/08 dated

19.9.2008 it is prescribed that a person employed under the

Indian Air Force would be eligible for civilian employment after

having rendered 7 years' service under the Indian Air Force.

9. The legal issue which arises for consideration is:

whether 7 years' period prescribed by the order in question

means that before a person applies for a civilian appointment

he should have completed 7 years' service under the Indian Air

Force or should the order be read to mean that 7 years'

service has to be completed when cessation of service takes

place.

10. The petitioner was appointed as an Airman on

17.6.2002. 7 years' service under the Indian Air Force would

be completed by him on 16.6.2009.

11. There existed a post of Assistant Commandant

under CRPF. The post being in a higher pay-scale and of a

superior rank vis-à-vis the post held by the petitioner, the

petitioner was desirous of joining CRPF as an Assistant

Commandant and hence, on 28.5.2008, submitted the

requisite application routing the same through proper channel.

This means that the petitioner submitted the application to the

concerned officer in the Indian Air Force, who in turn

forwarded the application to CRPF.

12. Luck smiled upon the petitioner. He was offered

appointment as an Assistant Commandant with CRPF with a

direction that he should report at the CRPF Academy,

Kadarpur, Gurgaon, Haryana on or before 5.12.2009. The

letter of offer issued by CRPF to the petitioner is dated

5.11.2009.

13. On 12.11.2009, the petitioner submitted an

application to the Indian Air Force praying that he may be

relieved so that he could join CRPF.

14. The request of the petitioner to be relieved was

under process and since the officers of the Indian Air Force

were proceeding at a snail's pace and 5.12.2009 was fast

approaching, the petitioner was constrained to file the instant

writ petition. For if, 5.12.2009 was crossed, the letter of offer

issued by CRPF would have lapsed and the petitioner would

have lost a valuable right.

15. It is unfortunate that till date the request of the

petitioner to be relieved has still not been decided by the

competent authority of the Indian Air Force. We are just 4

days away from the last date when the petitioner has to join

CRPF by reporting at the place notified in the letter of offer.

16. The issue at hand is no longer res integra. It has

been decided by two Benches of this Court, one of which is a

co-ordinate Bench (Coram: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Mool

Chand Garg, J.). The second decision is by this Bench.

17. Deciding WP(C) No.8760/2008, a Bench comprising

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Mool Chand Garg, J. held that the

requirement of the order in question which prescribes a

mandatory service of 7 years means 7 years' service before

being entitled to be relieved and not 7 years service when

application is made for a civilian appointment.

18. Same is the ratio of law laid down in the decision

penned by this Bench disposing of WP(C) No.9088/2008.

19. We may note that the petitioner has not applied

surreptitiously to CRPF for being appointed as Assistant

Commandant. The petitioner has done so with transparency.

He has submitted his application through proper channels i.e.

through the competent officer under the Indian Air Force.

20. It is apparent that the employer knew that the

petitioner was applying for being considered for appointment

as an Assistant Commandant under CRPF. If the respondents

mandates its policy to be read that no person can apply for a

civilian post till he completes 7 years of service under the

Indian Air Force then we would expect the respondents not to

forward the application of the person concerned who seeks a

civilian employment, to the authority inviting applications to

the civilian post.

21. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents No.1

to 5 states that the Commanding Officer of the petitioner

erroneously forwarded the application to CRPF.

22. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has now

completed 7 years of service under the Indian Air Force,

following the ratio of law laid down in the two writ petitions

noted herein above, we allow the writ petition.

23. We direct the competent authority of the Indian Air

Force to issue the requisite certificate/letter sought by the

petitioner so that the petitioner is able to join service under

CRPF. Needful would be done latest by 3rd December 2009 for

the reason by 5th December 2009 the petitioner has to report

to CRPF.

24. If for some reason the necessary certificate/letter is

not issued to the petitioner we direct that the present decision

would be treated as sufficient authorization in favour of the

petitioner of being relieved from service by the Indian Air

Force and in said eventuality we direct respondent No.6 to

accept the joining report submitted by the petitioner pursuant

to the present order.

25. Codal formalities can follow.

26. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to learned

counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court

Master today itself.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

NOVEMBER 30, 2009 Dharmender