1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3096/2008 Lt Col Ashok Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India & Ors. Date of Order :: 12.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Anuj Kala, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the respondents. ... The Ministry of Defence, Government of India by its communication dated 2.11.2007 conveyed to the Chief of the Army Staff, Chief of the Naval Staff, Chief of the Air Staff and to the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services regarding extension of tenure of short Service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces Medical Services from 10 years to 14 years. The petitioner who has already completed 20 years of service with Armed Medical Corps, under the representation dated 11.12.2007 claimed for extension of another 4 years of service as per the provisions of Army Instructions 75/78 as modified by the Government of India vide letter dated 2.11.2007. The claim of the petitioner was denied by the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services under a communication dated 11.3.2008. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred. It is pertinent to note here that the controversy involved in this petition for writ came up before Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High 2 Court in the case of Lt Col Garima Maheshwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. {Writ Petition (C) No.155/2008} that came to be decided on 14.1.2008. While dealing with the case of Lt Col Garima Maheshwari (supra) the Division Bench of Delhi High Court also examined the record of the petitioner as in entire country it is only the petitioner and Smt. Lt Col Garima Maheshwari to whom the extension was not granted on the count that they had already put in total services of 20 years under two spells. Hon'ble Delhi High Court after examining all aspects of the matter held as follows: “6. It is clear from the aforesaid quoted portion that the sanction of the President for extension of total tenure of Short Service Commissioned Officer is obtained which is now made as `total period of service' as fourteen years. The intention is manifest, namely, entire period of Short Service Commissioned Officer which was earlier ten years is now extended to fourteen years. It is thus clear that those who have already rendered fourteen years of service and above would not be entitled to the benefit of this amendment. The case of the petitioner would fall in this category as she has already rendered more than twenty years of service as Short Service Commissioned Officer. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in case this was the position as per the Army Instructions, she was not even entitled to be appointed second time in the year 1997. He further submitted that though her initial period of appointment was five 3 years, even in the year 2003 she was given extension for a further period of five years. From the records produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is borne out that this practice of appointment the Short Service Commissioned Officers for more than ten years, namely, given a break and then appointing again was objected to by the Audit as well as by the CDA and the notings show that the concerned departments were advised not to adopt this practice which was in violation of the aforesaid Army Instructions. Therefore, if the petitioner herein or any other such officers were given the second tenure as Short Service Commissioned Officer in violation of the said rules, that would not mean that such an illegality is to be perpetuated and the petitioner should now be given extension for other four years. We do not, therefore, find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.” I am also in total agreement with the interpretation made by Delhi High Court relating to the modifications made in Army Instructions concerned and the findings given as such. This petition for writ, therefore, stands dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '