* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15th July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 1918/2010
OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.S.Mann and Mr.K.K.Prasad,
Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ashish Mohan, Advocate for
Mr.Gaurav Liberhan, Advocate for UOI.
Mr.Atul Batra and Mr.Nirmal Pandit,
Advocates for UOI.
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. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated
19.1.2010 dismissing OA No.24/2009 filed before the Armed Forces
Tribunal.
2. Relevant facts to be noted are that vide para 12 of Air Force
Order No.12/S/48, as amended from time to time, initial term of
engagement for Airman is 20 years. Vide Air Force Order dated
WP(C) 1918/2010 Page 1 of 3
13.8.1999, vide para 2, it is stipulated that the initial term of
engagement may be extended till 26 years, but the same shall be
at the discretion of such officer to whom the power is delegated.
3. Vide para 4(b) of the said Air Force Order it is stipulated that
the option to extend the engagement, and the converse,
unwillingness for service to be extended must reach the concerned
officer at least 18 months prior to the expiry of the term of the
regular engagement. It is also stipulated therein that option once
exercised would be treated as final except under very exceptional
and extreme compassionate grounds could be withdrawn.
4. Suffice would it be to state that extension in service is not a
matter of right, but is a matter of discretion of the department and
secondly, option once exercised cannot be withdrawn save and
except under exceptional circumstances.
5. The petitioner exercised an option not to continue in service
and later on sought to resile from the same which has been denied.
6. The petitioner has not been permitted to withdraw his option
not to seek extension of service on twin reasoning; firstly that no
extreme or compassionate ground was made out by the petitioner
entitling him to withdraw the option, and second, which we find
more relevant with reference to the record that the Commanding
Officer wrote, while recommending rejection of petitioner’s request
to change his option, that the petitioner has been unable to perform
his trade to the satisfaction of the superior officers due to his
physical condition.
7. From the medical record of the petitioner, which he himself
has filed, it would be apparent that although the petitioner has
WP(C) 1918/2010 Page 2 of 3
been found to be otherwise physically fit, it has been opined by the
doctor concerned that the petitioner suffers from arthritis which
hampers the movement of his joints.
8. Impugned decision passed by the Tribunal would reveal that
aforesaid reasoning has been adopted by the Tribunal and since we
have independently looked into the issue and have reached the
same conclusion as has been reached by the Tribunal, we see no
reason to interfere with the impugned decision dated 19.1.2010.
9. We highlight that even if any one of the two reasons, given by
the department are accepted, the petition would fail. The second
reason of the department being petitioner’s work being found not
up to the mark, is good reason not to grant extension in service; we
highlight that extension in service is not a matter of right but is a
matter of discretion of the Competent Authority.
10. The writ petition is dismissed.
11. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SUNIL GAUR, J.
JULY 15, 2011
dk
WP(C) 1918/2010 Page 3 of 3