OA 1180 of 2011. Case: Basavaraj Paled Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal
|Case Number:||OA 1180 of 2011|
|Party Name:||Basavaraj Paled Vs Union of India|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Rajinder Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: S.K. Sharma, Sr. PC.|
|Judges:||Vinod Kumar Ahuja, J. (Member (J)) and S.C. Mukul, Member (Ad.)|
|Issue:||Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Section 14|
|Judgement Date:||April 23, 2014|
|Court:||Armed Forces Tribunal|
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 making a prayer that the discharge order issued by respondent No. 3, OIC Records Armoured Corps, C/O 56 APO, dated 20 December 2010 (Annexure A-4) may be quashed and the petitioner be allowed to complete his extended tenure for retention in service for the period from 25th September, 2011 to 24th September, 2013.
In brief, the petitioner alleges that he was enrolled in the Armored Corps as Clerk (GD) on 25th September, 1985 and was promoted to the rank of Naib Risaldar on 4th November, 2008. On 13th July 2009, he gave willingness certificate for extension of service by two years. He was screened by the Board of Officers for grant of extension w.e.f. 25th September, 2011 to 24th September, 2013 and accordingly granted extension vide board proceedings attached as Annexure A-3. He was at that time in medical category SHAPE-1 but in September, 2010 he became low medical category B-2 (Permanent). On 20th December, 2010, the respondent No. 3 issued the release order vide Annexure A-4 as the petitioner became low medical category in terms of Annexure A-1. In the meantime, the AHQ letter was superseded vide letter No. B/33098/AG/PS-2 dated 20 Sep 2010 (Annexure A-5). The petitioner represented for grant of extension but got reply Annexure A-7 and the petitioner was informed that he has to go for discharge in September 2011. Denial of extension in service by two years is contrary to the AHQ letter Annexure A-5 wherein it is stipulated that those willing will be given extension in service subject to meeting the laid down criteria. This letter was made applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 2011. Vide letter Annexure A-5 the petitioner was eligible for extension as was granted to him by the Board because the letter Annexure A-5 was applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 2011. Hence the present OA.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that low medical category is no disqualification for grant of extension since the IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 21.09.1998 has been superseded by IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 20.09.2010.
In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been brought out that the petitioner was discharged from service on 30th September, 2011 under Army Rule 13(3) Item I (i) (a) on completion of his term of engagement in the rank of Nb Risaldar i.e. 26 years of service. The petitioner was recommended for enhanced service for two years w.e.f. 25th September, 2011 to 24th...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL