o/o L4.07.2008 Present: Mr. N.L.Bareja, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Advocate for the Respondents. Lt. Cdr. Varun Singh. + wP (c) 4950/08 * The petitioner was commissioned in the Navy (Electrical Branch) in tJ 1996 and is stated to have got married on L2.LL.1999. The petitioner was posted at various places and it is alleged that the wife of the petitioner could not adjust to life of the wife of a naval officer and this resulted in matrimonial discord. The petitioner submitted an application for resignation from service dated 21.1,2OO7 to which there was no response. On the other hand, the wife moved for divorce and a decree of divorce was granted on 05.5.2007 by the Hon'ble Court at Faridabad. F The petitioner claims that despite the divorce, the petitioner as well as .i- tris divorced wife, in an attempt to patch uP, separately approached the \\propriate authorities for consideration of the petitioner's case for resignation vide letters dated 09.5 .2007 and 27.5.2004. Another development was that the petitioner's father suffered from heart problem and was admitted to the Army Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. lt is also stated that he was suffering from the disease of parkinsonism as well as enlarged Prostrate. The petitioner states that he is the only son to look after his father. The petitioner submitted another application dated 15.1.2008 for acceptance of his resignation from his commission on account of his father's health which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 18.6.2008. ( \ Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified The relevant records have been produced by the respondent and )/ have been scrutinized in the court. This was necessary for the court to satisfy itself about the reasons for rejection of the request of the petitioner since the impugned letter has no reasons. It has also come to light that the petitioner has re-married in.December Z€bZ. fne original cause of matrimonial discord between his wife and the petitioner thus does not survive. The only question is whether on account of the medical problems of the father of the petitioner he is entitled to discharge. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the concerned authority being DDOP and approved by COP, the delegatee of the Central Government. The decision has thus been taken by the competent authority to reject the case of the petitioner on account of the reasons recorded therein. We consider it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the decision:- "3. The officer had applied for PR on the grounds that his divorced wife was prepared to reconcile with him if he is able to ioin her permanently in Dubai. Meanwhile the officer remarried another Iady and has now sought PR to look after his ailing father, a residence of Faridabad who has suffered a hear stroke recently. His father also suffers from Parkinsonism and enlarged prostate gland which are been treated at AFC/Base Hospital, Delhi. He is the only child and the responsibility of taking care of his father rests with him. 4. JDOP (T)/DOP have not recommended PR vide note 73 ante-as the grounds cited by the officer do not warrant grant of PR. The officer is PG in Computer Science and has not yet completed the mandatory five years post course. Further, the officer has completed has completed only 72 years of service and does not meet exit norms as per NO 82/03. There is an acute shortage of 'L' officers in the Navy. The officers has also stated that he be i al retained in Delhi as far as feasible. Medical facilities required for his father's treatment are also available in Mumbai. The officer has spent three years in his current lJnit and is due for his rank sea -time. The issue was discussed with DG WESEE who is in agreement that the officer could be transferred to Mumbai so as to be able to take care of his professions as well as personal requirements. 5, As per para 77 of A/o. 82/03 PR/Resignation requests from officers with less than 75 years of service, particularly from the technical aviation and submarine branches/cadres will normally not be acceded to keeping in view the shortages/time spent on training, unless there are overwhelming and compelting reasons for acceding to such requests". The aforesaid shows that the question of the medical problem of the father of the petitioner has been taken care of by taking a decision that the petitioner be posted at a place where the medical facilities are available to the father of the petitioner. lt was also noticed that the reason for rejecting the tesignation was that there is an acute shortage of officers in Navy to which category the petitioner belongs. The petitioner was well aware of the ifrtri.tion of his service when he joined the same and it cannot be said that the shortage of personnel cannot be a ground to reject the request of the petitioner for resignation from the service. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two other officers from the same service have been permitted to resign. Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions stated that one such officer Lt. Cdr. Abhishekh Singh who married a foreign national after receiving prior approval who gave an undertaking to adopt Indian nationality within two months. The wife ,, however failed to renounce her original citizenship, and that was the reason why the request of the officer for resignation from service was accepted. The second is a case of Cdr. Rajiv Chatrath who had completed 15 years of service while in the case of petitioner such period of service has not been completed. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's resignation is in fact ffreO in para 4 abstracted aforesaid. The petitioner has completed 12 years of service thus is not meeting the existing norms as per the office circular No. 8212003. The criteria for rejection based on the length of service cannot be said to be so arbitrary or unreasonable that it would called for any interference by this court applying Wednesbury principle as was held in the case of Associated Provincial Pictu!:e Hauses-Lld= Vs. Wednesbury Cgrporation ,(L947) 2 ALL ER 680. In the end learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of fne Division Bench of this court in Major Rahul Shukla Vs. UOL 1995 (34) DRH (DB) where it was held that the case of the petitioner should have been \ p'ostponed for consideration of his resignation depending on the ability of the respondents to make necessary alternate arrangements. ln this behalf we consider it appropriate to direct that in case the respondents are able to meet the requirements of the shortage of personnel, the case of the petitioner be considered as soon as such shortage is met. In the alternative, the case be considered in terms of the norms of Circular No. 8212003 at the stage aPPlicable. D Dismissed with aforesaid direction. ( 'e July 14, 2008 rk I 1l SANJAY KISHAN^KAUL, J.