$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 21, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 3929/2011
S AHLUWALIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rekha Palli & Ms.Punam Singh,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anil Gautam, Advocate with
Lt.Col.Manish & Ms.Asha Anand,
Joint Director
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Petitioner is a commissioned officer in the Indian Army and
holds the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel. He works in the Corps Of
Signals.
2. With respect to equipments needed by the Indian Army, it
works very closely with Directorate General of Quality Assurance
W.P.(C) No. 3929/2011 1
(DGQA) and to bring synergy between the two departments,
technically qualified officers of the Indian Army are sent, from
time to time, on deputation to DGQA. Permanent absorption of
officers of the armed forces in DGQA is one of the mode of
appointment in DGQA.
3. The petitioner has a domestic problem, in that, he has an
old and ailing mother who suffers from various medical problems
as also a wife having medical problems.
4. It is not in dispute that the armed forces have always been
sympathetic to the petitioner and for said reason have
accommodated him at Delhi for long durations.
5. Realizing that he cannot be permanently stationed at Delhi,
way back in the year 2006, petitioner sought premature
retirement, for the obvious reason, he found it difficult to cope up
with his work in the Indian Army as also his domestic
responsibilities. The request for premature retirement was
rejected.
6. Fortunately for the petitioner a proposal materialized
wherein he could be at Delhi. On 11.1.2008, for tenure of 3 years,
petitioner was sent on deputation to DGQA.
7. The Indian Army required hands in the Corps of Signals.
Curtailing the tenure to 2 years, vide order dated 12.1.2010
petitioner was repatriated to the Corps of Signals. Representation
filed by him was rejected.
8. In April 2010, DGQA constituted a Board to consider
permanent secondment of such armed forces personnel who
W.P.(C) No. 3929/2011 2
were found fit for permanent absorption in DGQA. The Board
found petitioner fit to be absorbed in DGQA as per Board’s
recommendations dated 28.4.2010.
9. Needless to state, being a permanently commissioned
officer in the Indian Army, unless Indian Army formally releases
the petitioner for permanent secondment in DGQA, he could not
be the beneficiary of the Board decision dated 28.4.2010.
10. Requisition sent by DGQA with respect to the Board’s
opinion dated 24.8.2010 to the Indian Army was responded to by
the Indian Army on 28.8.2010. Unfortunately for the petitioner,
the Indian Army declined to accord its approval for petitioner’s
permanent secondment in DGQA.
11. Reason given by the Armed Forces was that it functions in a
command hierarchy which is ego centric and it normally
recommends permanent secondment of such officers who are
superceded. The obvious reason is that these officers who are
superceded become junior to other erstwhile juniors and this
causes ego clashes. It was pleaded that petitioner’s requirement
in the Army was necessary in public interest.
12. Petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.6564/2010 in this Court, titled
S.Ahluwalia Vs. Union of India & Ors. The writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 4.2.2011 finding merit in the stand
taken by the army authorities who generally accord permission
for permanent absorption in DGQA of such officers who were
superceded.
13. However, the extreme family hardship of the petitioner was
W.P.(C) No. 3929/2011 3
noted and thus while disposing of the writ petition it was directed
that in view of the observations made in the decision, which were
peculiar to the petitioner, the matter may be reconsidered for
petitioner’s secondment under DGQA. Alternatively, it was
proposed that if petitioner was to re-seek premature retirement,
the same should be considered in the alternative.
14. Reconsidering the matter, vide impugned order dated
29.3.2011, the army authorities have declined permanent
secondment of the petitioner to DGQA.
15. Instant writ petition was immediately filed praying that the
decision dated 29.3.2011 be quashed.
16. In the counter affidavit filed, the Indian Army disclosed to us
that in May 2011, DGQA had requested Military Secretary Branch
of Army Headquarters to intimate availability of officers who have
concluded 2 year’s tenure with DGQA and in response thereto,
the petitioner was made available for consideration for
permanent secondment in DGQA.
17. In other words, the Indian Army informed this Court that it
has no objection if petitioner proceeds on permanent secondment
to DGQA.
18. On 11.8.2011, the selection Board of DGQA met and
considered the names of various persons including that of
petitioner for permanent secondment in DGQA. The Board noted
that the petitioner had already been found fit for permanent
secondment at the Board meeting which was held on 28.4.2010
but did not make any recommendation qua the petitioner on the
W.P.(C) No. 3929/2011 4
reason that the petitioner had already been reverted to the
Indian Army in April 2010, and the instant writ petition was
pending. It was opined that it would be advisable to await the
outcome of the instant case.
19. We have asked learned counsel for the respondent, who on
instructions from Ms.Asha Anand, Joint Director, DGQA informs
that there are several vacancies available in DGQA where officers
of the armed forces can still be inducted on permanent
secondment with DGQA.
20. From the facts noted hereinabove, the following emerges:-
i. The medically infirmity of petitioner’s wife and his
aged mother requires petitioner to devote time with
his family.
ii. Petitioner has completed 2 year’s tenure on
deputation with DGQA before he was repatriated to
the Indian Army.
iii. The Board of DGQA which met on 28.4.2010 evaluated
the petitioner and found him suitable for permanent
absorption in DGQA.
iv. When consent of Indian Army was sought, it declined
to relieve the petitioner for permanent secondment
alleging shortage of staff.
v. The Indian Army has now no objection to petitioner’s
permanent secondment with DGQA.
vi. The Board of DGQA which met on 11.8.2011 deferred
considering petitioner’s entitlement for permanent
absorption in DGQA to await the decision in the instant
writ petition.
21. The conspectus of aforesaid facts lead us to the conclusion
that petitioner’s evaluation for absorption in DGQA has already
W.P.(C) No. 3929/2011 5
been completed at the Board which met on 28.4.2010. The Indian
Army has no objection now to his permanent absorption in DGQA.
It is not a vacancy based appointment. No body’s right is
adversely affected if we are to direct that on the strength of the
earlier selection strengthened by the current decision taken by
the Indian Army to release petitioner to be permanently
seconded in DGQA, petitioner be permanently seconded to
DGQA.
22. The writ petition stands disposed of declaring that
petitioner’s entitlement for permanent secondment in DGQA as
regards the said organization would be treated as having been
settled with respect to the QASB selection dated 28.4.2010.
Army’s concurrence for petitioner’s permanent absorption in
DGQA would be treated as final so far as the Indian Army is
concerned in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
23. Mandamus is issued that necessary formalities be
completed within 4 weeks and petitioner be released from Indian
Army for permanent absorption in DGQA.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent is desirous and learned
counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner
states that for the purposes of seniority in DGQA, the petitioner
would not claim ante dated seniority. Seniority would be
reckoned with effect from the date he joins DGQA on permanent
basis.
W.P.(C) No. 3929/2011 6
25. No costs.
26. Dasti.
CM No.13693/2011
Since writ petition has been allowed, the application is
disposed of as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
rs
W.P.(C) No. 3929/2011 7