Major Abhishek Dwivedi vs Union Of India And Ors

S.NO.,NAME OF THE OFFICER,SERVICE NO.,"COURSES AVAILED

FROM THE ARMED

FORCES INSTITUTE","INSTITUTE THE

APPLICATION

1.,Maj. Tarun Sood,MR-08357L,"MBBS, MS

(ENT)","Granted

Release

2.,Maj. Shilpi Singh,MR-08373H,"MBBS, MD

(Pathology)","Granted

Release

3.,Maj. Ankit Kumar,MR-08552H,"MBBS, MS

(Gen. Surgery)","Granted

Release

4.,Maj. Neelam Singh,MR-08643M,"MBBS, MD

(Dermatology)",Accepted

Mr. Mittal also placed before this Court, the decision of this Court in Major Rahul Shukla v. Union of India 59 (1995) DLT 573 (DB) where, in a",,,,

similar instance, this Court set aside the order passed by the Respondents rejecting the Petitionerâ€​s request for being relieved from service and asked",,,,

them to again consider afresh his application on sympathetic and compassionate grounds and pass an appropriate order within two months.,,,,

The Court finds that the decision in Major Rahul Shukla (supra), contains a detailed discussion of the prevailing regulations in the Army on the",,,,

subject of accepting an application for premature retirement/resignation. This Court has noted that the ground that the services of the Petitioner would,,,,

be required “to meet exigencies†cannot be a valid ground for rejecting such an application. It is also observed that “it may be a ground for,,,,

keeping the application in abeyanceâ€. In that case too, the Petitioner had made a request on account of grounds of domestic issues and the Court",,,,

formed the view his request required reconsideration. Even in that case, the Petitioner had drawn the attention of the Court to other instances where",,,,

requests for premature release had been accepted and the Court, after examining those instances, observed that “the Petitioner did stand on a",,,,

better footing than the cases of the doctors on whom the Respondents had spent substantial amounts in bringing them up as doctors for utility in the,,,,

armyâ€​.,,,,

Learned counsel for the Respondents sought to suggest that there was a policy in the Army that request for premature release would not be,,,,

considered earlier than completion of 20 years of service. However, the Court has perused the „Policy on Release/Resignation/Premature",,,,

Retirement in respect of AFMS Officersâ€​ issued by the Ministry of Defence and finds that there is no such requirement of a minimum of 20 years of,,,,

service in Army before an application for premature release can be considered. On the contrary, in para 3 thereof, it is stated that the term",,,,

„premature retirementâ€​ would apply only to permanent commission officers who have rendered 10 years or more of service, and who wish to",,,,

retire before the date of superannuation. Even so, in the four instances cited by the Petitioner the dates of their respective commissioning in the Army",,,,

were in the years 2006 and 2007 and they have been permitted to resign even before completing 10 years of service. It is further pointed out that one,,,,

of them, viz. Major Ankit Kumar, was allowed premature release within one year of his completion of the post-graduate course from Armed Forces",,,,

Institute.,,,,

This Court is of the view that it was necessary for the Respondents to give reasons for the rejection of the Petitionerâ€​s request and a single line,,,,

order merely stating that the request was being rejected on account on “pending service liabilitiesâ€​ does not satisfy the requirement of the law.,,,,

Consequently, this Court sets aside the impugned decision of the Respondents communicated to the Petitioner by the letter dated 24th April 2018",,,,

and directs the Petitionerâ€​s application to be placed before the Competent Authority for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. In particular,",,,,

the Competent Authority will consider the Petitionerâ€​s grounds as set out in this petition as well as the additional affidavit and give a fresh decision,,,,

with reasons. The Competent Authority will not be uninfluenced by any earlier decision. The fresh decision shall be communicated to the Petitioner on,,,,

or before 31st December 2018. If still aggrieved by such decision, it will be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance law.",,,,

The petition and application are disposed of in the above terms.,,,,