THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30172 of 1998 Dated: 07.02.2008 Between: Air Commodore A.L.Deoskar VRC .. Petitioner. And Chief of Air Staff and others. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30172 of 1998 ORDER: Questioning the retirement order dated 16.10.1998, and the subsequent letter of the respondent dated 29.10.1998, the present writ petition is filed. By order dated 16.10.1998, the petitioner was informed that he would retire with effect from 31.10.1998. The petitioner was asked to submit his application-cum-sanction for encashment of accumulated service leave as per the format given in Appendix ‘C’ along with details of service etc. He was also informed that, for re- settlement assistance, he was entitled to contact the DGR. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was commissioned as an officer in the Flying Branch of the Indian Air Force in the year 1964. He served the Indian Air Force for 34 years and in the year 1971 was awarded “Vir Chakra” for conspicuous bravery in the face of the enemy. He was promoted as Wing Commander in the year 1983 and as Group Captain in the year 1987. He was thereafter promoted as Air Commodore in the year 1994. On 27.11.1997 he took over charge as the Deputy Director General of the NCC Directorate. Petitioner would state that, as per the normal rules and regulations, he was served with the first retirement order in the year 1993 wherein he was asked to retire on 30.09.1994. However, since he was promoted to the rank of Air Commodore, the said order of retirement was no longer applicable. The petitioner was again informed in the year 1995 that he would retire with effect from September, 1996. The services of the petitioner were extended for a further period of two years from 01.10.1996 to 30.09.1998 in accordance with AIR Headquarters circular dated 15.09.1981, by which his services were deemed to be extendable for two years from the last date of his retirement. The petitioner received the extension order through proper channel on 12.06.1996. As per the order of extension, the petitioner was due to retire on 30.09.1998. However, vide proceedings dated 30.05.1998, the petitioner was intimated that the retirement of all Air Force personnel, who were due to retire on 31.05.1998, had been deferred until further orders. Subsequently, vide letter dated 04.09.1998 issued by the Ministry of Defence, the age of retirement of Air Commodores was fixed as 54 years extendable for a period of two years. According to the petitioner, he was, therefore, entitled to have his services extended upto 30.09.2000. However, he was informed telephonically, on 16.10.1998, that he would have to retire on 31.10.1998 and this telephonic communication was followed by a letter to the same effect. 3. Petitioner would rely on the proceedings dated 30.05.1998 to contend that since the age of retirement of all Air Force personnel had been deferred until further orders, and the age of retirement of officers in the cadre of Air Commodores of the Flying Branch had been extended to 56 years, the petitioner’s services ought to have been continued till 30.09.2000 and he ought not to have been prematurely retired with effect from 31.10.1998 or soon thereafter. Subsequently, vide proceedings dated 29.10.1998, the petitioner was informed that his case was considered for grant of extension of service upto 56 years of age, in terms of the letter dated 04.09.1998 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Defence, but he had not been found fit to fulfill the criteria for extension of service and as such he was not given the benefit of extension. 4. In the proceedings dated 30.05.1998 various cadres of the Air Force personnel were informed that it was decided to defer the retirement of all Air Force personnel who were to retire on 31.05.1998 and thereafter till final orders were issued except the categories mentioned therein. In the said letter, the category mentioned in serial number (e) is of those who were on extension in service beyond the stipulated retirement age on the date of issue of the order dated 30.05.1998. In this context, it is necessary to note that, vide proceedings dated 15.09.1981, the Government of India informed the Chief of the Air staff that the President of India was pleased to decide that the compulsory retirement ages and tenures of appointments in respect of Permanent Commissioned Officers of the Indian Air Force would be as per the details given in the Appendix thereto. The appendix, to the said order dated 15.09.1981, prescribes the compulsory retirement ages and the tenures of appointment in respect of the Permanent Commissioned Officers of the Indian Air Force mentioned therein. In respect of Air Commodores of the Flying Branch, while the compulsory age of retirement was prescribed as 52 years, it was extendable upto 54 years. Thus, while in the normal course an Air Commodore of the Flying Branch was required to compulsorily retire from service at the age of 52 years, his service, at the discretion of the competent authority, could be extended for a further period of two years i.e., till he reached the age of 54 years, and thereafter, the Officer concerned was not entitled to continue in service. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had already reached the compulsory retirement age of 52 years on 30.09.1996 and it was by virtue of his services being extended for a further period of two years i.e., upto 54 years, that he continued in service. While the petitioner completed 52 years of age on 30.09.1996, he completed 54 years of age on 30.09.1998. Thus when the proceedings dated 30.05.1998 was issued, the petitioner was on extension in service beyond the stipulated retirement age of 52 years and, as such, deferment of the age of retirement of the Air Force personnel, as indicated in the proceedings dated 30.05.1998, did not apply to him. 6. The Government of India, vide letter dated 04.09.1998, informed the Chief of Air Staff that the President had sanctioned increase in the existing retirement ages of all Permanent Commissioned and Branch Commissioned Officers of the Indian Air Force by two years. Paragraph 3, of the said letter dated 04.09.1998, stipulated that the orders would come into force with effect from 30.05.1998 and that the orders were not applicable to the officers who are on extension beyond the existing prescribed maximum compulsory age of retirement. Since the petitioner was already on extension, beyond the earlier prescribed age limit of compulsory retirement of 52 years, as on 30.05.1998, by virtue of clause (3) of the letter dated 04.09.1998, increase in the compulsory age of retirement was not applicable to him. 7. Even otherwise, from the appendix to the said letter dated 04.09.1998, it is evident that while the compulsory retirement age of Air Commodores of the Flying Branch was fixed at 54 years, it was extendable for a further period of two years i.e., upto 56 years, at the discretion of the competent authority. The petitioner reached the age of compulsory retirement of 54 years as on 30.09.1998 and his continuing thereafter could only be on an order of extension being passed by the competent authority. No right accrued in favour of the petitioner to claim that his services should automatically be extended beyond 54 years, more so, since a conjoint reading of the proceedings dated 30.05.1998, and the letter dated 04.09.1998, would establish that the enhanced age of retirement, as stipulated in the letter dated 04.09.1998, would not apply to the petitioner who was on extension of service having crossed the earlier age of compulsory retirement of 52 years. In any event, extension beyond 54 years is at the discretion of the competent authority who, vide proceedings dated 29.10.1998, informed the petitioner that his case was considered for grant of extension of service upto 56 years of age but he had not been found fit to fulfil the criteria for extension of service. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 7th February, 2008 v v