Lt.Col. Sk Ahluwalia vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 3306 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Date of Decision : April 23, 2015

+                  R.P.No.224/2015 in W.P.(C) 7451/2013

      LT. COL. SK AHLUWALIA                                     ..... Petitioner
                 Represented by:          Mr.S.S.Pandey, Advocate

                                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
               Represented by:            Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Seeking a review of the order dated April 07, 2015 it is urged that the error apparent on the face of the order is that it overlooks the guidelines dated November 18, 1997 and May 13, 1998 as per which finally superseded officers of the Indian Army were eligible for permanent secondment in the office of the Director General Quality Assurance (DGQA). It is urged further that the OM dated April 23, 2010 would apply prospectively only for officers inducted after November 16, 2007.

2. In our decision dated April 07, 2015, review whereof has been prayed for, this Court had noted that the issue had to be understood with respect to various policies relating to permanent secondment.

3. We began our journey by noting the first policy dated October 28, 1978. This was in paragraph 9 of the decision dated April 07, 2015. We had thereafter noted in paragraph 10 that the said policy was clarified on May 04, 1993 concerning the residency period as also the fact that the

officer entitled to be considered for permanent secondment should not have been finally superseded. We had thereafter noted in paragraph 11 that a policy dated November 16, 2007, issued in continuation of the policy dated October 28, 1978 dealt with the age limit as eligibility for permanent secondment. We had noted that the said policy was silent regarding entitlement of superseded officers for being considered for permanent secondment.

4. We had thereafter noted that a policy dated April 23, 2010 was issued and as per which superseded officers were not entitled to be considered for permanent secondment. We had thereafter noted that a policy dated May 12, 2011 was issued which specifically stated in clause 13(B) that officers would not be considered for permanent secondment if they were superseded. We had noted that policy dated May 12, 2011 could not be applied for the reason in paragraph 3 it was clearly mentioned that it would be applicable to only those who were inducted into DGQA on tenure prospectively from the date of the issuance of the office memorandum.

5. Noting that the petitioner had been sent on deputation to DGQA on January 28, 2009 and has case for permanent secondment was considered by the Board on August 11, 2011, we have noted that petitioner's case was considered as per the policy dated April 23, 2010.

6. Since admittedly the petitioner had been superseded on June 01, 2009 he was not considered for permanent secondment.

7. We had distinguished the decision cited by the petitioner in CA NO.3879/2013 UOI & Ors. Vs. Col.G.S.Garewal.

8. To put it pithily, the only ground raised in the review petition is that clause C of the OM dated April 23, 2010 makes it clear that the OM dated November 16, 2007 will be made applicable prospectively for officers

inducted on deputation after November 16, 2007 and since the petitioner was taken on deputation after said date the petitioner's entitlement for permanent secondment has to be considered only in terms of the OM dated November 16, 2007, in which the clause of bar of superseded officers did not exist.

9. The said submission of the petitioner is incorrect for the reason the OM dated April 23, 2010 clearly states that it would be read in continuation with the OM dated October 28, 1978 as amended by the OM dated December 22, 1993 and the OM dated November 16, 2007. Thereby clearly mentioning that the guidelines issued by all the OMs were to be read in continuation with each other.

10. Though in OM dated November 16, 2007, the clause of supersession does not exist, but vide OM dated April 23, 2010 the clause has been re- introduced. Relevant would it be to simply highlight that when petitioner's case for permanent secondment was considered on August 11, 2011, the policy of April 23, 2010 was in vogue. As regards the OM dated May 12, 2011, it was specifically made applicable only to those who were inducted into DGQA on tenure prospectively from the date of the issuance of the OM and not to those who were inducted prior thereto. As noted above the petitioner was inducted in DGQA on deputation on January 28, 2009.

11. There is no merit in the review petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE APRIL 23, 2015/mamta