Delhi High Court
Colonel G.P Singh (Retired) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 May, 2022
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 13.05.2022
+ W.P.(C) 5923/2022
COLONEL G.P SINGH (RETIRED) ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Namrata Malik, Adv. with
Mr.Colonel Kumar Verma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, Central
Government Standing Counsel with
Mr.Ved Prakash & Ms.Kanu Priya
Sharma, Advs. with Maj. Partho
Katyayan.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL. 17743/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5923/2022
3. By way of the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the
Armed Forces Tribunal orders dated 27.05.2019 & 28.02.2022 passed in OA
No.865/2019 and RA No. 02/2020 respectively. Petitioner further seeks
directions to the Armed Forces Tribunal to restore and tag OA No.865/2019
along with analogous matters upon same cause of action listed before the
Tribunal.
4. The background facts of the case are that petitioner was
commissioned as a Lieutenant in the Army on 17.12.1988 in the Corporation
of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers and at that time, the retirement age
of Colonel rank officers was fixed at 52 years. Thereafter, vide notification
dated 03.09.1998, the retirement age of regular officer of Colonel rank of all
Arms and Services was fixed at 54 years whereas the Colonel rank officers
belonging to JAG, AEC, ASC (FIU) and Military Farms (MF) was fixed at
57 years and Military Survey at 60 years. Moreover, the age of retirement of
regular officers of Colonel rank in the Army had been fixed at 54 years
whereas the age of retirement of Colonel equivalent to the rank of a Group
Captain in Air Force of ground duty branch was fixed at 57 years and a
Captain in Navy at 56 years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
promoted to the rank of Selection Grade Lieutenant Colonel in October 2001
and thereafter promoted to Selection Grade Colonel and was posted to 604
EME Bn as Commanding Officer, however, he could not be promoted to
Brigadier due to limited vacancies in the rank of Brigadier and steep
paramedical structure of Army. On 31.10.2015, the petitioner had retired on
superannuation in the rank of Colonel on attaining 54 years of age.
6. Learned counsel further submits that due to the disparity in the age of
retirement of officers at Colonel level and between Colonel and equivalent
level among three services, 67 Colonel rank officers challenged the same
before the Armed Forces Tribunal and petitioner had also filed OA
No.763/2015 challenging the unfair discriminatory policy on the age of
retirement before the said tribunal. The batch matters were adjudicated at
length and the OAs were partially allowed by the tribunal by a common
order dated 20.12.2017, (lead O.A. being 741/2015 titled as "Colonel
Karunesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.") by directing the respondents
to increase the retirement age of Colonels from 54 to 56 years and for
Brigadier from 55 to 57 years, however, while rejecting the directions
passed by Tribunal, respondents passed a speaking order dated 23.05.2018
by rejecting the enhancement of retirement age in respect of the petitioner as
well as other similarly situated officers.
7. Being aggrieved, petitioner challenged the same being OA
No.865/2019 before the tribunal and vide order dated 27.05.2019, the same
was dismissed at admission stage in gross violation of provisions of Section
10 of CPC. Thereafter petitioner again filed RA No.02/2020 before the
tribunal for review of its order dated 27.05.2019, however, the same was
also dismissed with the reasoning that there is no scope of further review
once an application had been dismissed on merit of the case. Hence, present
petition has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal has committed a
grave error by dismissing the OA No. 865/2019 at the admission stage when
the OAs instituted by the similarly situated officers is admitted and listed
before another Bench. Another ground raised is that dismissal of second RA
was not dismissed on merits but on technical grounds and applicability of
provisions of Section 10 CPC should not halter the larger issue in question.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at Bar submits
that the OA pending before Bench No.1 also pertains to the retired and
similarly situated persons like the petitioner and if the said Bench proceeds
with the OA, then it will be cause great prejudice to the petitioner herein.
9. As stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
similar OA is pending before Bench No.1 of Armed Forces Tribunal,
therefore, we hereby dispose of the present petition by making it clear that if
the issue pending before the said Bench is decided in favour of the petitioner
therein, then the benefit of the same shall also be applicable to the petitioner
herein.
10. In view of above, petition is disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE
MAY 13, 2022/ab
