ORDER
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order passed by the respondents on 2.11.93 discharging the petitioner from service as also the orders of confirmation dt. 23.3.94 and dt. 5.5.94.
2. The petitioner joined as an Airman under the respondents in 1962. The petitioner successfully completed 32 years of service with the respondents sometime in the year 1993. The last tenure of the petitioner as an Airman would have come to an end on 30.6.1994. In terms of the existing policy of the respondents, options were called from the petitioner seeking his option of willingness/unwillingness for his extension of service. The petitioner gave in writing to the respondents his option of willingness to continue to serve the Indian Air Force. Pursuant to the aforesaid exercise of option by the petitioner his service was extended for a further period of three years w.e.f. 22.6.94 to 21.6.97. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was acceded to by the competent authority, as a consequence of which the order dt.14.6.93 was issued extending his service for a period of three years starting from 22.6.94. However, immediately after the aforesaid order of extension of service of the petitioner for a period of three years, the petitioner gave in writing another application dt. 14.7.93 contending, inter alia, that on account of his domestic problems he was compelled to change his option and clearly stated that he did not want any further extension of service. Since the petitioner changed his option earlier given and exercised a clear option that he was unwilling for any extension of service and was also unwilling to serve Indian Air Force any further, an order was passed on the said application filed by the petitioner accepting his option of unwillingness. Although the petitioner thereafter submitted representations to the respondents seeking for cancellation of his earlier application dt.14.7.93 on various grounds, the competent authority after considering the application of the petitioner, issued the order of discharge of the petitioner on the ground that change of option time and again was neither permissible nor acceptable.
3. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that it was only after issuance of the order of discharge of the petitioner that the petitioner started making representations himself as well as through his father that his services be extended again. It was specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the application filed by the petitioner dt. 14.7.93 changing his option earlier given and exercising a clear option of unwillingness to serve any further on account of his domestic problems was processed by the respondents and forwarded to respondent NO.2 on 1.9.93 along with the executive report, which was accepted by the competent authority. It is also stated that the petitioner’s application dt. 3.8.93 was actually submitted to the authority only on 16.9.93, which would be apparent from the Section Commander’s signature in the month of September in his own hand. It was also stated that respondent no.2 issued the order of discharge of the petitioner on 22.10.93 and while passing the aforesaid order of discharge, the applications of the petitioner dt. 14.7.93 and dt. 3.8.93 (received on 16.9.93) were duly considered.
4. In the context of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner withdrew his unwillingness to continue his service in view of the fact that the petitioner was likely to be promoted and in case he stood retired from service, he would be deprived of the benefits of his promotion. It was submitted that the petitioner, in fact, was promoted on 1.6.94 but he could serve in the said promoted post only for a period of one month in view of his discharge from service and, therefore, the petitioner has been deprived from getting the benefits of his promotion on 1.6.94.
6. Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, relied upon the circular of the respondents dt. 21.6.89 laying down the policy of the respondents with regard to extension of service relating to Airman. The petitioner had put up in approximately 32 years of service with the Indian Air Force. In the normal course, the tenure of the petitioner as an Airman would have com to an end on 30.6.94. Options were called for from the petitioner by the respondents for his willingness/unwillingness for extension of service for a further period of three years. The petitioner had given in writing to the respondents, under Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit that his service could be extended for a further period of three years w.e.f. 22.6.94 to 21.6.97. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was acceded to by the competent authority, as a consequence of which the order dt. 14.6.93 was issued by the respondents extending his service for a further period of three years starting from 22.6.94 to 21.6.97. However, after the said order was passed by the respondents extending the services of the petitioner for a further period of three years, the petitioner gave in writing another application dt. 14.7.93 contending, inter alia, that on account of his domestic problems, he was compelled to change his option and did not want any further extension. The said application dt. 14.7.93 is also annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-2.
7. I have also perused both the aforesaid applications. The first application, where the petitioner had expressed his willingness to extension of service for a further period of three years was in a proforma which was filled up by him and he submitted the same on 13.11.92, which was counter-signed by his Commanding Officer on 7.12.1992. However, on 14.7.93 the petitioner submitted the aforesaid application seeking for change of option for further extension of service on compassionate ground. He categorically stated in the said application that he was compelled to change his option from willingness to unwillingness for extension of service, due to domestic problems. Along with the said application, he also annexed his necessary unwillingness certificate for further extension of service w.e.f. 22.6.94. He also requested that his change of option for further extension of service be accepted and his discharge be issued accordingly.
8. According to the circular of the respondents issued on 21.6.89, laying down the policy of extension of service of the Airman, it is provided that after issuance of the aforesaid circular, option for willingness/unwillingness from Airman for extension of service would be called for 18 months prior to completion of their retirement and option for willingness/unwillingness once exercised would not be permitted to be changed. The aforesaid change in the policy from the earlier policy of allowing two changes of option to be made throughout the service career of an Airman was made effective immediately upon issuance of the aforesaid notification dt. June, 1989. It is true that even in spite of the said circular, the respondents allowed change of option, so far the petitioner is concerned, allowing him to change his option from willingness to unwillingness. The said change was allowed taking a sympathetic consideration. The question is whether the aforesaid permission to change the option from unwillingness to willingness should be allowed to be changed once again, particularly after the order of discharge was issued by the respondents on 22.10.93. The application submitted by the petitioner dt. 14.7.93 for his unwillingness to serve the Indian Air Force and seeking to proceed on retirement was spontaneous and a conscious decision of the petitioner and the grounds given therein were his domestic problems.
9. Taking a sympathetic view of the matter, the respondents allowed the petitioner to change his option from willingness to unwillingness. The said option exercised by the petitioner could not have been repeatedly changed, particularly on the face of the specific provisions of the aforesaid circular issued by the respondents. When the respondents have taken the decision that the change of option time and again is neither permissible nor acceptable, particularly in view of the aforesaid circular, the said decision making process by the respondents cannot be said to be either illegal or without jurisdiction. The respondent is a disciplined force and the petitioner was a member of the said disciplinary force which is responsible for the security of the nation and certain amount of discipline and decisiveness is naturally expected from the employees. No infirmity is found in the action of the respondents. The petition has no merit and is dismissed, but without any costs.