HAV AEC SHYAMVIR SINGH Vs. UOI
LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-116
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 30,2007

HAV/AEC SHYAMVIR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

THAKUR, J - (1.) The petitioner is working as a Havildar in the Army Education Corps. He was at the relevant time posted in Head Quarter, 301, Infantory Brigade. A request for deployment of 100 personnel on UN mission for the democratic Republic of Congo appears to have been received by the Indian Government pursuant to which 100 personnel including 17 officers, 6 JCOs and 77 ORs belonging to different Arms/Services were selected and deputed for the said mission in the year 2004 The tenure of the mission was for a period of one year. It is not in dispute before us that those sent on the mission have since returned home after serving their tenure. The petitioner has, all the same, filed the present writ petition complaining against his exclusion from the mission. He has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to strictly follow the policy circular in terms of letter dated 22nd November, 2001 issued by the Army Headquarters on the subject. His grievance appears to be that while chosing the members comprising the Peace Keeping Mission, the authorities have violated the said policy to the prejudice of the petitioner in as much as inclusion in a foreign Peace Keeping Mission implies certain advantages and benefits in terms of pay and allowances which the others have enjoyed while the petitioner has been deprived of the same on account of his arbitrary exclusion from the mission.
(2.) The respondents have filed a short affidavit followed by a detailed counter affidavit in which they have justified the selection of 100 member Peace Keeping Mission for serving in Congo. The allegation that the respondents have violated the prevalent policy for selection of the members of the mission to the prejudice of the petitioner has been denied.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. As noticed earlier the mission was to serve only for a period of one year. That period is admittedly over long time back. The members of the mission have also returned home. The question of selecting or deputing the petitioner to be a part of the said mission, therefore, does not arise. Mr. Kauntae, however, argued that the respondents may consider the petitioner's claim for a similar deputation in future strictly in accordance with the policy and standing orders and instructions. Mr. Kait had no difficulty in making a statement that the respondents would, while sending similar Peace Keeping Mission to other countries, keep the provisions of the prevalent policies and instructions and circulars issued from time to time in that regard, in view. He submitted that in case according to the said policy decisions, orders and circulars, the petitioner is found to be eligible for selection and deputation as a member of any mission, that may in future leave the shores of this country, he may be considered and sent for the same. That submission, in our opinion, should sufficiently allay the apprehension of the petitioner that he may be excluded from consideration even in future for being deputed as a member of a foreign mission.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.