UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus R.P. YADAV ETC.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 10-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
R.P. VADA V ETC. 
MAY 10, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW 
Navy Act, 1957-Navy (Discipline and miscellaneous Provision) 
C Regulation, 1965-Regu/ations 217 and 218-Navy Order No. (Stp) 17 of 
1994-Re-engagement of sailor-After obtaining his consent-Whether the 
sailor can be permitted to withdraw his consenr for re-engagement and 
demand release from th~ service--Held no-Sailor has no right to claim 
release during subsistence of period of engagement or re-engagement <1$ of 
right-To vest such a right in a member of the Naval Force will not be in 
D keeping with the high standard of discipline ('xpected of members of defence 
service. 
The respondents were appointed as Artificer Apprentice in Indian navy. 
Their initial engagement was for 15 years. The respondents exercised their 
E option for re-engagement in the service for a further period-of 4 years, before 
expiry of the period of their initial engagement. The options were accepted 
and their re-engagement was approved. Thereafter, they made a request for 
withdrawal of their option which was turned down. They filed separate writ 
petitions before High court contending that they had given option under 
impression that the period of 4 years of initial training was not to be counted 
F for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and therefore they had to 
serve for 4 more years to earn pension under the Rules, and that in view of 
change in law brought about by A.K. Dey's case that initial training is l!lso 
part of qualifying service for the purpose of pension, it was not necessary for 
them to continue in the service and hence they should be released. The plea 
of the State was that an Apprentice Artificer who was re-engaged for a certain 
G period on his consenting to it, he cannot resile from the option as a matter of 
right, and that A.K. Dey's case has no bearing on this case. 
Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed release of the 
respondents. Writ Appeal filed by the State was dismissed. Respondent 'Y' 
H was released as per the High Court's order, while respondent 'K' was still 
196 
3 
U.0.1. v. R.P. Y ADAV 
197 
not released. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that practice prevailing in 
the Navy is that the option of re-engagement is asked for much before the 
completion of initial period of engagement, so that the authorities have 
sufficient time for planing and maintaining the strength of the force; and that 
A 
if the case of the respondents is accepted, it will seriously erode the discipline B 
and efficiency of the force. The respondent contended that the authorities 
cannot stand in the way of release of the respondent on completion of 15 years 
which is qualifying service for pension, because the position as laid down in 
the case of A. K Dey came to the knowledge of the respondent as well as the 
authorities only after judgement in the case was rendered and the law laid C 
down by this Court is binding on the authorities; and that the officers of the 
department also have understood the matter in the same way, which is evident 
from the letter HQNTG/3/ADM[S]/l of the Director (ADL) dated 9.4.1997, 
recommending the case of the respondent for release. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD : Per Mahapatra, J. (For himself and Thomas, J.): 
1. The provisions of the Naval Str. 17 leave no manner of doubt that 
re-engagement of sailor can neither be claimed by a sailor as a matter of 
right nor can cancellation of re-engagement and release from the force be E 
claimed by a sailor as a matter of right. It is to be decided by the competent 
authority keeping in view relevant factors, the most important one being the 
service requirements. [205-D) 
2. From the conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Act, the 
Regulations and the Navy Orders the position is manifest that the Naval F 
Service is to be maintained as a highly disciplined service always kept in 
readiness to face any situation of emergency. [205-E] 
3. To vest a right in a member of the Naval Force to walk out from the 
service at any point of time according to his sweet will is a concept abhorrent G 
to the high standard of discipline expected of members of defence service. 
The provisions in Regulation like Regulations 217 and 218, rule out the 
concept of any right in a sailor to claim as of right release during subsistence 
of period of engagement or re-engagement as the case m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.