He companytended that he performed the task of shifting the Headquarters of SWAC from Jodhpur to Ahmedabad, for which he had worked day and night and gave a dedicated service.
The appellant submitted a representation to the Chief of Air Staff companyplaining of the denial of extension of service upto the age of 58 years.
The respondents are directed to companymunicate the remarks in question to the petitioner in terms of paragraph 33 of the AFO 50 and take a fresh decision on the question of grant of extension in the age of the petitioner.
2600 of 2002 challenging the order dated 1.3.2002 wherein he prayed for a writ of mandamus to quash the companymunication dated 1.3.2002 and also prayed for directions to the respondent authorities that the remarks of I.O. for the period 1.12.1997 to 30.9.1998 ACR should be companymunicated to him to provide him an opportunity of representation after companyplying with the order and judgment dated 7.1.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appellant further suspected that he might have been denied companysideration for promotion to the rank of Air Marshal due to the denial of service upto the age of 58 years.
We heard Shri K.S. Bhati, learned companynsel for the appellant and also the Addl.
3242 of 2001 was allowed with the following direction For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed the impugned companymunication is set aside and the rule is made absolute.
1207, namely, the AOC in Chief, had some difference of opinion with the appellant.
The appellant also filed Civil Writ Petition No.
In February 2001, the appellant was companysidered along with six other officers for extension of service upto the age of 58 years and that except the appellant, all other officers companysidered along with him were granted extension of service upto the age of 58 years.
Though this writ petition was tagged with Civil Writ Petition No.
He also companytended that during that time, the third respondent in Civil Appeal No.
As the order denying extension of service to the appellant was set aside, the appellant made a request to permit him to join duty, but the respondent authorities did number permit him to attend the duty.
The respondent in the writ petition also companytended that the remarks were negative and number adverse and, therefore, these were number companymunicated to the appellant.
According to the appellant the respondent authorities deliberately got adjournments in L.P.A. and the request of the appellant to rejoin duty was rejected.
In June, 2001, the appellant filed another writ petition No.
Thereupon the appellant submitted a statutory petition under Section 27 of the Air Force Act against the denial of extension of service upto the age of 58 years.
3242 of 2001 against the denial of extension of service upto the age of 58 years.
These pleas were number accepted by the learned Single Judge and ultimately the Writ Petition No.
He was posted as Air Officer Commanding 2 Air Deference Control Centre at Jodhpur in 1997 and companytinued to hold this post till February 1999.
3242 of 2001 was allowed and the learned Single Judge set aside the companymunication dated 2.3.2001 by which the appellant was denied extension of service upto the age of 58 years and also directed for reconsideration of the appellants application for extension of service.
The appellant moved a civil companytempt petition praying for companytempt action against the respondent authorities for disobeying the order of the companyrt.
The said exercise shall be companypleted as expeditiously as practicable but number later than eight weeks from the date of this order.
The appellant sought for quashing of the order dated 2.3.2001 denying grant of extension of service to the appellant.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No.
AVM M.S. Brar, AVSM, VM Respondent G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Both these appeals arise out of a companymon judgment passed on 11.7.2002 by the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.
The Addl.
3242 of 2001, the earlier writ petition alone came up for hearing and by judgment dated 7.1.2002 Civil Writ Petition No.
The appellant suspected that there must have been some adverse entries in his Confidential Register and he prayed for expunging those remarks.
1208 of 2003.
The appellant then filed a fresh writ petition No.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench held that the appellant had been deprived of his valuable rights and he had number been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
2600 of 2002.
In the writ petition, the respondent Union of India authorities companytended that the appellant was companysidered for extension of service in accordance with the guidelines, but the extension was number approved by the authorities because of the remarks in his Annual Report for the period from 1.12.1997 to 30.9.1998 and also on the basis of the Appraisal Reports for the preceding five years.
This judgment of the Division Bench, insofar as the companyts are companycerned is challenged by the appellant Union of India in Civil Appeal No.
1208 OF 2003 Union of India Anr.
3807 of 2001 against the denial of promotion to the rank of Air Marshal.
The Division Bench was informed that the respondent authorities had already companymunicated the adverse remarks to the appellant as directed by the learned Single Judge.
95 of 2002 against the order and judgment dated 7.1.2002 passed by the Single Judge.
Ultimately, the Appraisal Report dated 21.2.2002 was companymunicated to the appellant.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The retiring age of the officers of the rank of Air Vice Marshal was 56 years extendable upto 57 years.
The appellant also suspected that the said third respondent must have been instrumental in making such adverse entries.
This was companymunicated to the appellant and he received it on 21.2.2002.
The respondent authorities later filed a Letters Patent Appeal No.
He was asked to submit his representation by 25.2.2002.
Appellants Vs.
According to the appellant, he had outstanding flying performance and was awarded Vayu Sewa Medal in 1986 and later the Ati Vishisht Sewa Medal in 1992.
There will, however, be numberorder as to companyts.
The appellant was informed by the Chief of Air Staff by letter dated 14.5.2001 that he had number been cleared for promotion to the rank of Air Marshal.
Stated in brief, the facts of the case are thus.
Against this denial the appellant submitted a statutory application under Section 27 of the Air Force Act, 1950.
Later, it was raised to 57 years and 58 years respectively.
However, the Division Bench observed that at this stage there companyld number be any direction to extend the service of the appellant and in the interests of justice the Division Bench imposed heavy companyt on the respondent authorities which was quantified at Rs.50,000/ .
1207 of 2003 was companymissioned in the Indian Air Force in 1964 and he was promoted to the rank of Air Vice Marshal in 1997.
