T.A. No. 182 of 2010. Case: Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | T.A. No. 182 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K. Ramesh, Adv. and For Respondents: Jasmine Ahmed, Adv. |
| Judges | Manak Mohta, J. (J) and Z.U. Shah (A), Members |
| Issue | Army Act - Section 40; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 |
| Judgement Date | May 10, 2010 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
Manak Mohta, J. (J) and Z.U. Shah (A), Members, (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
The applicant filed a writ petition (civil) No. 9792 of 2009 in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court praying that orders of his discharge which was initiated vide movement order dated 20.6.2009 (Annexure P-2) be quashed and he be granted two years extension of service. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal 5.11.2009 on its constitution.
-
The brief relevant facts are as under that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 06.7.1985. He was awarded 7 days RI for committing an offence under Army Act Section 40 (a) on 2.10.1995 for using criminal force against a superior officer (Annexure P-3). He was denied 2 years extension of service vide order of his discharge dated 20.6.2009 (Annexure P-2) in view of Army HQ policy dated 21.9.1998 (Annexure 5) which debars extension of service to persons for specified category of offences. The applicant contends that another Army HQ promotion policy dated 10.10.1997 (Annexure P-4) prohibits promotion for three years for the same offences. It is submitted that the applicant committed the offence when he was a sepoy way back in 1995. Subsequently he was promoted to the rank of havildar (Hav) on 01.1.2007 and qualified in cadre for promotion of JCO on 30.9.2008. The contention of the applicant is that if he can be considered for promotion there is no reason for being denied extension 14 years after the commission of his one and only offence. This is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The applicant has prayed that the order of his discharge communicated vide movement order dated 20.6.2009 be quashed and he be granted two years of extension of service.
-
The respondents in their counter affidavit have brought out that the applicant, in 1995, had used criminal force against a superior officer and was punished under Army Act Section 40 (a) and thus he was permanently debarred from grant of extension of service vide Army HQ policy dated 21.9.1998. The respondents have stressed that promotion and extension of service are entirely different subjects and policies governing them vary from each other. The respondents have therefore recommended that the application be rejected.
-
We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial