OA 960 of 2011. Case: Dalwinder Singh Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | OA 960 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Mr. R.N. Sharma, CGC and Mr. Ram Chander Sr. PC |
| Judges | Prakash Krishna, J. (Member (J)) and Lt. Gen. (Retd.) N.S. Brar, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 |
| Judgement Date | February 25, 2014 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
(Regional Bench At Chandimandir)
1. This petition has been filed seeking declaration to the effect that the policy under which the petitioner has been deprived of further extension of re-employment for one year (beyond 57 years of age) due to low medical category, S1H1A2(P)P1E1(F-2) is illegal, null and void, ineffective, against the interest of the employees etc. etc. and claims entitlement to serve for extended period of one year upto the age of 58 years.
2. Brief background is that the petitioner was commissioned in the Army on 11.06.1977 and retired on 30.09.2008. he was re employed for two years vide letter dated 19.06.2008 (Appendix B). While in service, the petitioner was placed in low medical category, S1H1A2(P)P1E1(F-2), which was attributable to military service. As per the employment management index (Appendix-A), he was unfit to serve in High Altitude Areas above 2700 metres and places with sub zero temperature for more than three months in a year. As per the Scheme of re-employment issued vide letter dated 05.06.2000, (Appendix C), Re-employed Officers are required to serve in two tenures for one year and six months each in station which is in service interest and station based on individual requirements The petitioner was posted at Faridkot and opted for second posting at the same place. The second extension was granted at the same place vide letter dated 12.08.2010 (Appendix E). However, this extension was upto the age of 57 years due to being low medical category although he had applied for re-employment upto the age of 58 years. His request for extension was turned down (Appendix G and H). Thereafter vide letter dated 12.03.2011, the petitioner applied for review of policy which was declined (Appendix I & J).
3. It is then stated that as the petitioner had done 1st tenure at Faridkot and was willing to do 2nd tenure also at Faridkot, which does not fall under any of the restrictions imposed by medical category, there was no reason to deny him the extension.
4. With the above alleged facts, the petitioner prays for declaration of the policy to be null and void and consequently to be re-employed for one year.
5. Written statement has been filed by the respondents and it is stated that as per the policy applied uniformly, medical restrictions are that-
1. The Re-employment of officer is extended from 57 to 58 years, if the individual fulfils the following criteria as per AG/PS-2(a) letter No. B/32228/PC/AG/PS-2(a)...
To continue reading
Request your trial