Judgment:
1. The applicant had filed a writ petition (civil) No. 27 of 2009 in the Honble High Court of Delhi. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 10 September 2009.
2. The applicant has stated that he was enrolled as a sepoy in the Army on 6.12.1975. It was submitted that after his superannuation his service was extended for two years from 15.1.2005 to 14.1.2007 (up to 31.1.2007) in terms of letter dated 21.9.1998 issued by Army Headquarters, New Delhi. During his period of extension his medical category was downgraded to P2 (Permanent) with effect from 14.5.2006 due to âprimary hypertensionâ. He was served a show cause notice on 16.10.2006 for discharge under Army Rule 13(3)(1)(i)(a) before his extended tenure expired. The applicant was discharged on 1.11.2006. It is stated by the applicant that he was discharged without holding an invaliding Medical Board. The applicant also challenged the Army Headquarter policy for extension dated 21.9.1998 on the grounds that it is unjust, unfair and against Army Rules and law settled by Apex Court. It was contended that due to the discharge he was deprived pay and allowances for the period of three months ie 1.11.2006 to 31.1.2007 and also deprived of honorary commission of lieutenant. The applicants statutory complaint dated 31.10.2006 was rejected on 10.1.2008.
3. The applicant has submitted that military service personnel cannot be discharged on low medical grounds without recommendation of an invaliding medical board as held by Honble Supreme Court Judgment in UOI and other Vs. Rajpal Singh (civil appeal No. 6.5.1987) decided on 7.11.2008. He has thus prayed that his discharge during his extended period be quashed and he be granted pay and allowances with effect from 1.11.2006 to 31.1.2007 and be considered for grant of honorary commission.
4. The respondents in their counter affidavit have brought out that the applicant was enrolled on 6.12.1975 and he was granted extension of tenure from 15.1.2005 to 14.1.2007 but had to be discharged from service with effect from 1.11.2006 since he was downgraded medically to P2 (permanent) on 14.5.2006. The release Medical Board, held on 26.9.2006, mentioned that his disease was aggravated by military service and assessed 30 % disability for life. He was granted Rs. 855/- per month as additional disability pension. The release Medical Board on 26.9.2006 opined that he be released in P2 (permanent) category. His discharge was sanctioned with effect from 1.11.2006, that is within six months after being downgraded P2 (permanent). His recommendation for grant of honorary commission were processed on Independence Day 2006 but he was not granted Honorary commission being low in merit. He was however granted the rank of Honorary Lieutenant after retirement on 26.1.2007.
5. We have perused the records and heard the arguments at length. It is clear that the applicant had completed his age of retirement of 52 years of age on 14.1.2005 and was on two years extended service up to 31.1.2007 as per terms of the Army Headquarters letter dated 21.9.1998 which specifically indicates that during extended period, if placed in permanent low medical category such PBOR will not be entitled to retention in the service. His medical category was brought down to P2 (Permanent) on 14.5.2006 and the applicant was discharged under Army Rule 13 I (i) (a) before completion of extended period of service or tenure in terms of Army Headquarter letter of 21.9.1998. We have also considered the contention with regard to said letter but we do not find it arbitrary, unfair or unjust. These terms have been embodied in the letter keeping in view interests of the organisation in grant of extension of service. The Honble Supreme Court judgment in UOI Vs. Sub Rajpal Singh (supra) does not help the stand of the applicant since he (applicant) was discharged on completion of his normal tenure of service. The applicant was not retained in extended period due to low medical category P2 (permanent) as per policy of 1998. From a perusal of the policy it is very clear that it applies only for extensions after completion of normal tenure. It is a settled law that extension cannot be claimed as a right and particularly in this case it is only a dispute of pay and allowances for the remaining period of three months. We do not find any irregularity, illegality and impropriety in the impugned discharge order. Further as per reply of respondent the applicant has already been granted honorary commission of rank of lieutenant on 26.1.2007. Before that the applicant was low in merit. We have considered this contention but we do not find any merit in the issue as honorary commission was granted subsequently. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion we do not find any interference in the matter and the application is dismissed. No costs.