The thrust of the companytentions of Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General was that the practice prevailing in the Navy is to ask for option of the Artificer Apprentice companycerned, his option for re engagement much before one year companypletion of the initial period of engagement fifteen years then so that the authorities may have sufficient time to companylect informations about the vacancy position and proper planning for maintaining the strength of the Naval Force can be made well in time.
327 of 1999, challenging the above judgment order of the learned single Judge.
The main companytention raised by the respondent in support of his case was that he had given his option for re engagement under the impression that the period of 4 years of initial training after appointment was number to be companynted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and therefore he has to serve for four years more to earn pension under the rules.
It was the further case of the respondents that the decision of this Court in A.K. Dey supra has numberbearing on the companytroversy raised in the case.
16848 of 1999, the period of re engagement granted to the said respondent is due to expire on 31st January, 2002.
He filed the writ petition, CW No.
The companytention by the respondent was that in view of the change in the legal position brought about the decision of this Court, it is numbermore necessary for him to companytinue in service and he should be released from the force with all retiral benefits with immediate effect.
This, according to the learned companynsel is necessary to keep the force in readiness for any eventuality.
3833 of 1997, before the Delhi High Court seeking the following reliefs i issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 11 06 97.
Shri K.G. Bhagat, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, companytended that in A.K. Dey supra , this Court has held that the period of initial training of four years as an Artificer Apprentice is to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for pension which under the service rules regulations is 15 years.
The respondents in the writ petition filed letters patent appeal, LPA No.
This Court in A.K. Dey another vs. Union of India others supra ruled that the period of initial training is also a part of qualifying service for the purpose of pension.
ii issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the petitioner on the scheduled date of 31 01 98 and grant him the pension and other retiremental benefits as applicable to on the expiry of 15 years including 4 years training period.
The period of initial engagement of 15 years expired on 31 1 1998.
In our view the answer to the first question rests on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Navy Act, 1957, The Navy Discipline and Misc.
The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by the Judgment dated 3 8 1999, which is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the respondents of the writ petition.
The request was turned down by the authority vide the rejection order dated 11 6 1997.
Elucidating the paint, the learned companynsel submitted that if the case of the respondent is accepted then an Artificer Apprentice who is a Sailor as held by this Court in A.K. Dey supra , can just walk out of the force at any time according to his sweet will and such a situation will seriously erode the discipline and efficiency of the Navy.
A learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi by the Judgment dated 4th May, 1999, accepted the case of the respondent, allowed the writ petition and issued the direction, the respondents shall release the petitioners and send them to Commodore, Bureau of Sailors Chhetah Camp, Mankhurd, Mumbai 400 088, within 3 months for this purpose.
The option was accepted and re engagement till 31 1 2002 was approved by the companypetent authority.
On the case of the parties gist of which has been stated above, the points formulated earlier arise for determination.
The position of law laid down by this Court is binding on the authorities companycerned and therefore they cannot stand on the way of release of the respondent from the force on companypletion of 15 years which is also the qualifying service for pension.
The period of re engagement granted in the case of R.P. Yadav has also expired.
P. MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
Indeed in the Order dated 14 2 2000, this Court recorded the submission of Mr. Soli Sorabjee, learned Attorney General for India, that so far as the respondent R.P. Yadav is companycerned, the Union of India is only interested in having the question of law decided and even if it is decided in favour of the Union of India, they will number deny the benefit which R.P. Yadav has claimed in this petition.
Raj Kumar was appointed as an Artificer Apprentice in the Indian Navy on 14 1 1983.
Provision Regulation 1965 and Navy Order No.
Before expiry of the said period he exercised option for re engagement for a further period of four years and signed the requisite papers on 26 4 1996.
On 9 4 1997, the respondent made a request for withdrawl of his option for re engagement and cancellation of the order.
This position came to the knowledge of the respondent and the authorities companycerned only after the Judgment in A.K. Deys case was rendered.
The case of the respondents in the writ petition, shortly stated, was that an Artificer Apprentice who is granted re engagement for a certain period after obtaining his companysent cannot subsequently resile from it and cannot claim release from the force as a matter of right.
The factual position in the case of R.P. Yadav is similar on all material aspects excepting the difference as numbered above.
