Junior Warrant Officer Dr ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2696 Del

      *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                       Date of Decision: 24.04.2012


+                       W.P.(C) No.289/2012 & CM No.3833/2012


Junior Warrant Officer DR Mundiyara                    ...     Petitioner

                                   Versus

Union of India & Ors.                           ...      Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :    Mr.Jayant Nath, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Krishna
                        Muraree Singh, Advocate
For respondents     :   Mr.Sachin Dutta, Central Govt. Standing Counsel &
                        Mr.Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR


SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

This matter concerns an airman seeking extension of service for the

third time in terms of the relevant Air Force Rules. Admittedly, he had been

assessed as fit and had in fact been granted extension on two previous

occasions, despite being repeatedly categorized as A4 G4 on the prescribed

fitness scale.

After some hearing; conscious as we are of the fact that admittedly,

while recommending the petitioner's further extension for the third term, a

specialist officer in his opinion rendered on 20th August, 2007 had certified

that the petitioner is a very sincere and hardworking airman; and that, "his

disability has not affected his professional output".

And that, furthermore, the concerned Air Commodore who, as the Air

Officer Commanding, is the over all in-charge of the petitioner's Unit, has

also endorsed this recommendation on 6th October, 2008, by stating inter-

alia:-

"1. JWO is professionally competent and is capable of undertaking any task assigned to him in methodical fashion. A very sincere hardworking JWO with positive attitude, capable of undertaking overhaul of rotables/supervisory independently. His disability has not affected professional out put and he has been an asset to the organisation.";

And without giving our mind on any material aspect of the matter,

except to state that there appears to be some inconsistency in the opinion of

the Appeal Medical Board dated 8th September, 2011, and, in fact the

requisite Condonation Board has not been constituted thereafter; we

consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to constitute a fresh Appeal

Medical Board to examine the case of the petitioner, without looking at, or

being influenced by, the finding of the previous Appeal Medical Board that is

impugned before us. The finding of that Board, which is to be constituted in

terms of this order, be then put to a Condonation Board as envisaged in Air

Force Order No.11/99 dated 13th August, 1999, inter-alia, in terms of para 4

(iv) thereof.

The entire exercise be carried out within eight weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

Needless to say that it would be open to the petitioner to impugn any

decision emanating from the respondents in case he is so advised.

Dasti.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

APRIL 24, 2012 vk