Case: SQN.LDR. (RETD). NAVTEJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

HQ EAC on 01.12.2009. HQ EAC vide signal No. PS/471 dated 08.12.2009 informed that the officer had already proceeded on release from the IAF on medical grounds w.e.f. 18.11.2009. In the light of the release of the officer from the IAF already having occurred and the Appellant was no longer subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, the matter relating to his application for grant of ex-post facto sanction with Ms. Meenu Sangha, an Indian national holding Canadian immigration visa, did not merit being pursued further.?14. We heard learned counsel for the parties at length who took us through the relevant documents and record.15. The assertions made in the counter affidavit, as extracted hereinabove, indicate that though the application was made by the appellant for ex-post facto sanction for marriage, it was not considered since, in the meantime, the appellant was released from the Indian Air Force on medical grounds and as such was no longer subject to the Air Force Act, 1950.16. The facts on record indicate that:i) The appellant intended to marry Ms. Meenu Sangha daughter of Colonel Jagjeet Singh (Retd.) holding an Indian passport but working with Toronto Dominion Canadian Trust Bank with Canadian immigrant visa.ii) It is a common ground that in terms of the relevant policy, a serving officer would be required to obtain permission before any marriage with a foreign national could be contracted.iii) On 27.10.2008 the appellant applied to the Directorate seeking permission to marry.iv) According to the relevant policy document the marriage could not be contracted without requisite permission to marry and in case no communication was received from the Directorate for 120 days, there would be deemed consent and permission.v) The appellant without waiting for the express permission or the expiry of 120 days, did contract the marriage on 19.12.2008.vi) Any violation on part of the officer of the mandate the concerned policy could visit him with the possibility of departmental action including dismissal or removal from service.17. In the present case neither there was any action taken against the appellant for infraction of the mandatory requirement of the policy nor there was any express communication rejecting his request seeking permission. As a matter of fact, there was no communication at all within 120 days.18. After having contracted the marriage, the appellant also applied for ex-post facto permission for marriage. However, said application was not considered at all as, in the meantime, the appellant was released from Indian Air Force and ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Indian Air Force Act, as asserted in the counter affidavit.19. It is in this factual backdrop that the issue in question needs to be considered. The underlying idea behind the policy is that in case a person governed by the provisions of Indian Air Force Act, 1950 intends to contract marriage with a foreign national, requisite intimation in that behalf is required to be made and appropriate permission is also required to be obtained. As a part of the exercise, the foreign national with whom the marriage is to be contracted may be required to give up the original citizenship and acquire citizenship of India. If there be any infraction or violation of the mandate of the requirements, the concerned officer could be visited with penalty including dismissal or removal from service. The policy has well laid and designed procedure including the timelines and the time limit of 120 days within which the authorities are required to apply their mind and consider the application seeking permission. In case nothing is heard within 120 days, the policy incorporates the concept of deemed consent or permission. All these requirements are in respect of those governed by the Indian Air Force Act, 1950 that is to say the serving officials.20. In the present case, even if we are to proceed on the footing that the marriage was contracted without the permission and as such there was infraction on part of the appellant, no disciplinary action was initiated or taken against him nor was any express rejection of his request intimated to him at any stage. His initial application was dated 27.10.2008 and he was invalidated out of service with effect from 18.11.2009 on medical grounds and not for any infraction of aforesaid policy. As a matter of fact, the department did not respond for more than 120 days in the matter.21. In any event of the matter, what is relevant for the present purposes is the fact that the appellant is no longer in service with Indian Air Force and on the respondents? own showing he has ceased to be subject to Indian Air Force Act. During the course of hearing we asked the learned counsel for the respondents as to what advantages and benefits a retired service person including his family would be entitled to. We have been given to understand that the wife may in certain cases be entitled to pension, in the event of death of the officer and the family including the spouse would be entitled to benefits such as canteen facilities and membership of officers club and such other benefits. We further asked the learned counsel for the respondents that if an officer after his release or retirement wished to contract marriage with a foreign national was there any restriction or prohibition under any of the policy documents in force. The learned counsel could not lay his hands on any such policy or point out any such provision. The stand of the respondents thus is clear that the policy in question is aimed at regulating certain aspects while the officers are in service. If an officer after his release or retirement could, therefore, validly contract the marriage with a foreign national and the spouse would therefore be entitled to all the benefits including medical or hospital facilities or club membership or canteen facilities etc., it does not stand to reason why the appellant, at least after his release from the Indian Air Force, should be disentitled in that behalf.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. The assertions made in the counter affidavit, as extracted hereinabove, indicate that though the application was made by the appellant foro sanction formarriage, it was not considered since, in the meantime, the appellant was released from the Indian Air Force on medical grounds and as such was no longer subject to the Air Force Act, 1950.In the present case neither there was any action taken against the appellant for infraction of the mandatory requirement of the policy nor there was any express communication rejecting his request seeking permission. As a matter of fact, there was no communication at all within 120 days.18. After having contracted the marriage, the appellant also applied forfacto permission for marriage. However, said application was not considered at all as, in the meantime, the appellant was released from Indian Air Force and ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Indian Air Force Act, as asserted in the counter affidavit.19. It is in this factual backdrop that the issue in question needs to be considered. The underlying idea behind the policy is that in case a person governed by the provisionsof Indian Air ForceAct, 1950 intends to contract marriage with a foreign national, requisite intimation in that behalf is required to be made and appropriate permission is also required to be obtained. As a part of the exercise, the foreign national with whom the marriage is to be contracted may be required to give up the original citizenship and acquire citizenship of India. If there be any infraction or violation of the mandate of the requirements, the concerned officer could be visited with penalty including dismissal or removal from service. The policy has well laid and designed procedure including the timelines and the time limit of 120 days within which the authorities are required to apply their mind and consider the application seeking permission. In case nothing is heard within 120 days, the policy incorporates the concept ofn of Indiadeemed consent or permission. All these requirements are in respect of those governed by the Indian Air Force Act, 1950 that is to say the serving officials.20. In the present case, even if we are to proceed on the footing that the marriage was contracted without the permission and as such there was infraction on part of the appellant, no disciplinary action was initiated or taken against him nor was any express rejection of his request intimated to him at any stage. His initial application was dated 27.10.2008 and he was invalidated out of service with effect from 18.11.2009 on medical grounds and not for any infraction of aforesaid policy. As a matter of fact, the department did not respond for more than 120 days in the matter.21. In any event of the matter, what is relevant for the present purposes is the fact that the appellant is no longer in service with Indian Air Force and on the respondents? own showing he has ceased to be subject to Indian Air Force Act. During the course of hearing we asked the learned counsel for the respondents as to what advantages and benefits a retired service person including his family would be entitled to. We have been given to understand that the wife may in certain cases be entitled to pension, in then of Indiaevent of death of the officer and the family including the spouse would be entitled to benefits such as canteen facilities and membership of officers club and such other benefits. We further asked the learned counsel for the respondents that if an officer after his release or retirement wished to contract marriage with a foreign national was there any restriction or prohibition under any of the policy documents in force. The learned counsel could not lay his hands on any such policy or point out any such provision. The stand of the respondents thus is clear that the policy in question is aimed at regulating certain aspects while the officers are in service. If an officer after his release or retirement could, therefore, validly contract the marriage with a foreign national and the spouse would therefore be entitled to all the benefits including medical or hospital facilities or club membership or canteen facilities etc., it does not stand to reason why the appellant, at least after his release from the Indian Air Force, should be disentitled in that behalf.