1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, the applicant has prayed for the following
reliefs.
(a)  Issue directions to the Respondents to quash and set aside the Army HQ, ADGMP Letter datedl 7 Nov 2020 read with AMC Records letter dated 02Â
Dec 2020 assailed as the Impugned Orders in the Original Application and placed as Annexure A-1 (CoIly)  being arbitrary and whimsical on the face of it;
(b)  Issue directions to the Respondents to allow the PMR Applications of the Applicant so that the Applicant could be discharged from military
service with immediate effect based on the extreme genuine circumstances as discussed in the Original Application to meet the ends of equity, justice
and fair play;
(c)  Pass such other and further orders to the Respondents by way of an adequate exemplary compensation in the attendant genuine circumstances of the case,
to meet the ends of justice.
2. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order issued by the Competent Authority on 17th November, 2020 vide Annexure A-1 whereby the
request of the applicant for premature retirement has not been considered.
3.  The facts in nutshell indicate that the Applicant was enrolled in service on 18thMay, 2004 in the Army Medical Corps and has now
 put in  more than 16 years of service.  Presently, the applicant is posted at Military Hospital, Pulgaon as a Havildar
(Laboratory Assistant). It  is  the  grievance  of the applicant that though on account of various domestic and family problems, the applicant
had applied for premature retirement from the Army Medical Corps right in the year 2018, till date the Competent Authority has not considered his
claim. It is the case of the applicant that on 19th November, 2018 vide Annexure A-2 he has forwarded a complaintÂ
to the District Collector, Jalgaon (Maharashtra) seeking protection to his family members living in his house from miscreants. It isÂ
the case of the applicant that he was, at that point of time, serving in Military Hospital, Avadi and he was a resident of Plot No - 10A,
Krushi Nagar, Dheku road, Tehsil and PS-Amalner, Distt-Jalgaon (Maharashtra). His family consists of his aged parents, wife
and daughter and his younger brother, who was preparing for PG after completing  his MBBS course at Delhi, which is about
1500 kms away from the native place of the applicant. It was pointed out in the complaint to the DistrictÂ
Collector that his neighbour named Smt. VP Saner had illegally constructed a house/compound wall on the back side of the applicant's
house blocking the natural air and light to his house. A complaint was, therefore, filed by the applicant against this lady before the Municipal
Corporation, Amalner and they sent a notice to her to remove the obstruction. It is said that since this neighbouring lady'sÂ
son and her brother were harassing and ill-treating his parents by using unparliamentary language, they indulged in rude behaviour inÂ
front of applicant's wife and his mother and threatened to kill his family. On 20th November 2018, though the Commanding Officer ofÂ
the applicant had also requested the District Collector to protect the house of the applicant from miscreants and take necessary measures to
safeguard his family and aged parents, no action has been taken. Since  the harassment continued, the applicant sought premature
retirement from  service  and  the  application  for  premature retirement dated 1st July, 2019 filed is at page 21. It is pointed outÂ
in this application that the earlier application submitted on z April 2018 was also not considered. The learned counsel took us through
various documents and material available on record, the strong recommendations made by the applicant's superior officers  for
 his premature retirement  and the  fact  about applicant's father's death in between as is evident from death certificate
(Annexure  A-4) on 27th September, 2019. The learned  counsel  also  submitted  about the  recommendations made by theÂ
Competent Authority and the Commanding Officer and inability of the respondents in considering his application properly andÂ
passing an order. Referring to the impugned order, learned counsel argues that the matter relating to the applicant had been deferredÂ
without taking any action on the ground of want of manpower, etc., whereas on 1st September, 2020 three officers in the
rank of Lt Col  had  been granted  premature retirement in Base Hospital, Lucknow, Military Hospital, Bhuj and Air Force Hospital, Bangalore.
Similarly, one Zeenath Mary, Lt Col (TS) in MH, Avadi unit was also granted premature retirement on 10th December, 2020. In spite of all these
factors contending that applicant's claim, which is based on genuine family problems has not been considered and the matter has been deferred from
time to time. The learned counsel also argued that in somewhat identical  situation,  a  Coordinate  Bench  of this Tribunal  has granted
premature retirement and it is a fit case where the claim of the applicant could also be considered. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance
on the following decisions:
(i)  Union of India and others v. R.P. Yadav (2000 AIR SCW 2370);
(ii) Â Cp/. Abhishek Joshi v. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 2309/2021 decided by AFT (PB) on 17.11.2021.
(iii) Hav/STA Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 517/2021decided by AFT RB (Lucknow) on 03.12.2021
(iv) Maj Piyush Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.  (OA No.1876/2020 decided by AFT (PB) on 18.02.2022.
(v)  Cpl Shaju M v.  Union of India & Ors.  (OA No. 1963/2017 decided by AFT (PB) on 23.02. 2022.
4.  The Respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit and it is their case in Para 8(a) and (b) of the counter affidavit that discharge on
compassionate ground is not a matter of right and in a routine manner  applications  are  filed  for  premature retirement, In Para 9,
10 and 11 of the counter affidavit, the following submissions are made to say that premature retirement cannot be granted.
Â
(9) It is evident from the preceding paragraphs that, the applicant had submitted the applications thrice  for premature  retirement  from  service  on
compassionate grounds of routine nature like demise of father, looking after old aged mother, court case pertaining  to property dispute  and case  filed
at municipal corporation etc. The same were examined in detail in accordance with existing policies in vogue by Army Medical Corps Record Office and not
agreed to by the competent authority as per the merit of the case and alarming deficiency in the trade to which the applicant belongs.
(10) As per norms, the premature retirement from service at own request is being dealt with as per guidelines issued  by  integrated Headquarters of
Ministry of Defence (Army). In the past, it has been noticed that the cases of premature retirement has gradually increased and hence, only
genuine cases are being recommended after verifying the merits of the cases and Corps manpower state. With respect to the reasons mentioned by theÂ
applicant in his applications, regarding medical condition of  the applicant's mother, he can provide better medical care to her in service hospitals
wherever he is posted. Further, regarding cases pertaining to property dispute and social dispute filed at Honble Court and municipal corporations
respectively, he can be granted leave by military authorities in case his physical presence is mandated during the respective hearings. In addition, theÂ
individual has been granted compassionate posting to Military Hospital Pulgaon nearby to his hometown Jalgaon which is approximatelyÂ
350 km from Pulgaon and hence, he may also exercise the option to follow up with the ongoing  cases accordingly  while
 being posted to Military Hospital Pulgaon. Therefore, premature retirement will serve  no  specific purpose  to  the applicant.
(11) It  is  pertinent  to  mention  that,  Army Medical Corps is meant for providing medical cover to all serving personnel of Indian Armed Forces and
their dependents.  Every personnel serving in the Army Medical Corps in various trades are assigned important duties in accordance  with  their trades.
Here, the applicant is a serving Laboratory Assistant and has an important role to play in service hospitals i.e. generation of various laboratoryÂ
related reports of  the patients which requires specific qualification and competence on the subject. As such Laboratory Assistant category is grosslyÂ
deficient in the Corps. The applicant being a Non-Commissioned Officer and an experienced person, his services are being considered inescapable
in the organization till he completed his terms of engagement i.e. 24 years of colour service. Deficiency of even a single Laboratory Assistant in anyÂ
of the service hospitals has direct bearing on patient care and clientele satisfaction, which is very important and crucial in saving life an limb of a
patient.
5.  It is argued  that the applicant has earned  maximum benefits out of the service, he has completed his pensionable
service,  availed deputation to United Nation's Mission at Congo from September 2014 to June 2015 and earned substantial
monetary benefits out of this service. He was promoted to the rank of Havildar and his term of engagementÂ
increased from 20 years to 24 years of colour service and taking into account all his family problems stated in Annexure R-10 on 25th
February, 2020 he was posted to Military Hospital Pulgaon in District Maharashtra very near to his home town so that he could resolve his family
problems and facilities were being granted to the applicant to resolve his family disputes pending in various Courts. The
Respondents also referred to the administrative necessity indicated in the matter as contended in the note sheet at Page No. 91 to showÂ
that grant of premature retirement at this stage to the applicant is not possible and the following administrative reasons are indicatedÂ
in the note sheet at page  91. It is indicated that a total of 51  premature retirement applications have been received through
proper channel from various individuals working in the Corps. The grounds for seeking premature retirement have been thoroughly scrutinized
and it is found that it is a routine, domestic, health, land dispute and children education related problems. However, in the Corps
there is an acute shortage of technical hands,  particularly in the pharma and department of medicine where there is more than 20%
deficit and in technical trade the deficit is more than 10%. Furthermore, during the current year, the sanctioned manpower has beenÂ
reduced. No recruitment process has been undertaken due to Covid-19 pandemic and on account of various administrative reasons, theÂ
applications are  being deferred. A detailed note sheet from page 91 to 94 has been filed indicating the administrative reasons which
prevented the respondents from granting premature retirement to the applicant. Accordingly, it is the case of theÂ
respondents that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no illegality or irregularity in not granting premature retirementÂ
to the applicant at this stage.
6. Â We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7.  While enrolling a person to the service in the Forces, certain terms and conditions are laid down in the offer of appointment and the
individual joins the service in the Forces after accepting the said terms and conditions. An individual who joins the Forces is governed by the terms and
conditions of appointment and it is a well-settled principle of law that grant of premature retirement is not a right but it is done on the basis of
various circumstances prevailing in the environment. The requirements of service are of paramount importance and grant of premature retirement is
normally taking into account various administrative and executive reasons. In R.P Yadav (supra), while consideringÂ
the right of an employee to seek premature retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:
An incidental question that arises is whether the claim made by the respondents to be released from the force as of right is inÂ
keeping with the requirements of strict  discipline of the Naval Service. In our considered view the answer to the question has to be in the
negative. To vest a right in a member of the Naval Force to walk out from the service at any point of time accordingly to his sweet will is a concept
abhorrent to the high standard of discipline expected of members of defence services. The consequence in accepting such contention raised on behalf of the
respondents will lead to disastrous results touching upon security of the nation. It has to be borne in mind that members of the defence services including the Navy
have the proud privilege of being entrusted with the task of security of the Nation. It is a privilege which comes the way of onlyÂ
selected persons who have succeeded in entering the service and have maintained high standards of efficiency.  It is also clear from  the provisions in
Regulations like Regulation 217 and 218 that persons who in the opinion of the prescribed authority, are not found permanently fir for any form
of naval service may be terminated and discharged from the service. The position is clear that a sailor is entitled to seekÂ
discharge from service at the end of the period for which he has been engaged and even this right is subject to the exceptions provided in
 the  Regulations. Such  provisions,  in  our considered view, rule out the concept of any right in a sailor to claim as of rightÂ
release during subsistence of period of engagement or re-engagement as the case may be. Such a measure is required in the larger interest of the country. A
sailor during the 15 or 20 years of initial engagement which includes the period of training attains a high  degree  expertise and skill for which
 substantial amounts are spent from the exchequer.
8.  Even  in  the  case of premature  retirement,  the  same principle  is applicable. The applicant has sought premature retirement
 only because  of  his  family  circumstances.  The respondents have considered the same and he was granted compassionate ground
 posting  to  Military  Hospital,  Pulgaon, which is close to his home town i.e. Jalgaon. That apart, the
administrative necessities which prevent the respondents from considering the application of the applicant have been detailed in the
counter affidavit which we have considered. As grant of premature retirement is not a  right but is a factor to be considered basedÂ
on administrative requirements and organisational  necessity,  when  in  such  cases, the scope of judicial review is limited,
interference by Court can be made only in exceptional circumstances. We find no exceptional circumstances existing in the present
case and if the circumstances pointed out by the applicant for seeking premature retirement are balanced in the backdrop of theÂ
administrative requirements indicated, particularly with reference to shortage of manpower on the technical side, this Court cannotÂ
exercise its power of judicial review in such matters. In the case of Cpl. Abhishek Joshi (supra), no principle has been
laid down. The respondents  were  directed to  consider  granting premature retirement  to  Hav/STA  Mukesh  Kumar (supra)
 taking into account the  serious ailments of the  applicant viz,  he  was suffering from Hansen's disease and he was placed in LMC P3 (T-
24) andP2 (T-24) and treating his case  as  an extreme compassionate case. The facts of the said case are entirely different and will not help
the applicant. In the case of Maj Piyush Bansal (supra) also, after evaluating various factors, it was found that the application of the employee was
not considered in accordance with the policy and the matter was only remanded back for reconsideration. In the case of Cpl
Shaju M (supra), this was again a case where the applicant who had suffered from Chronic Otitis Media Right was
granted premature retirement. It was a case of low medical category and in accordance with the mandate of Air Force OrderÂ
No 16/2008, the interference was made. The case of the applicant is not identical to the cases relied upon byÂ
him and are all distinguishable on facts. It is a well settled legal principle that grant of premature retirement or premature
retirement is not a right. It is granted on evaluation of various administrative and executive reasons and if  the consideration indicated by the
respondent's shows justice for keeping the matter pending, in the limited scope of judicial review available, this Tribunal should not interfere.
In the present case, the applicant wanted premature retirement only because of certain  family issues. The  respondents have  evaluated his
application and posted to a place about 300 kms near to his home town, given him permission to visit his home town by granting
leave as and when required and kept his application pending for consideration till the administrative situation improves.
9.  Taking note of all these factors, we find no justifiable reasons to interfere with the matter. The respondents have acted fairly to the applicant,
their action cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or illegal in any manner, whatsoever and once the administrative action is found to be
reasonable and justifiable in nature, interference within the limited scope of judicial review, in our considered view, is not possible.
10. Â Accordingly, finding no ground for interference into the matter, the OA stands dismissed.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands closed.
Pronounced in open Court on this the 4th day of July 2022.