JWO (Clk GD) J Sheerani vs UOI & Others on 25 September 2025

O R D E R

25.09.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant extension of service to the Applicant for the period from 01.01.2026 to 30.06.2028 in terms of AFO 24/2021.

2. The brief facts of the case, as enunciated by the Applicant, are that the Applicant was enrolled in Air Force on 31.12.1990. The Applicant was promoted to the rank of acting Junior Warrant Officer (JWO) and now he is in Promotion

Panel for the rank of substantive JWO. The Applicant had applied for extension of service on 10.01.2024 which was further forwarded to Respondent No 4 on 18.04.2024 duly recommended by his Commanding Officer. However, the same was rejected by Respondent No 4 vide letter dt 06.09.2024. The Applicant again submitted an application dt 16.10.2024 for extension of his service on compassionate grounds through proper channel on 25.10.2024 for submission to the Competent Authority. However, Respondent No 5 (the reviewing authority), did not forward the same to the Competent Authority. The applicant raised an online query on 26.03.2025 before the Competent Authority for re-consideration of extension of service but he did not receive any reply from the Competent Authority. However, Air Force Record Office vide letter No 2024/AFRO/RRD/661 dt 06.09.2024 have intimated that extension of engagement of the Applicant has not been approved by the Competent Authority in terms of AFO 24/2021 and ordered to discharge the Applicant from Service in due course. The Applicant submits that he is a hardworking and disciplined air warrior who performed his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and has no record of degradation in performance or demonstrated behavior and has not been granted displeasure of any kind during his entire service career and, hence, he cannot be deprived of his right of extension of service without any reasons. The Applicant submits that similarly placed persons, viz., Sgt I Ali of 750 Signal Unit and Sgt P Chavan (ADSO) who were in low medical category A4G4(P) have been granted extension of service, whereas the Applicant has been denied the same without any reasons which is violative of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 17.10.2014 in CA No 9849/2014 in the case of State of UP & Ors Vs Arvind Kumar Shrivastava & Ors. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Applicant submits that the denial of extension of the Applicant from service without any reasons is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and infringement of constitutional, legal and fundamental rights and filed the present OA for directing the Respondents to sanction extension of service of the Applicant.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that Air Force Instruction (AFI) 12/S/48, as amended from time to time and superseded by AFI 01/2019 stipulates the terms and conditions of the initial regular engagement of an Airman for 20 years. Thereafter, extension of service is granted to eligible airmen on submission of their willingness and subject to requirement of the service. Subsequently, it is the discretion of the Air HQ or such other authority as may be specified by Air HQ to grant or deny extension of service. Therefore, extension of service after completion of 20 years can neither be claimed as a matter of right nor there is any obligation on the Air Force to grant extension to every Airman. Air Force

Order

(AFO)

comprehensively deals with extension of engagement of Airmen. This AFO lays down the detailed procedure for grant of extension of engagement beyond the initial term of engagement. On completion of initial term of engagement, an Airman may be granted extension of engagement for either six years or three years of regular service as per his willingness, subject to general principles explained in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of AFO 21/2014. The discretion for grant of extension of engagement has been delegated to Air Officer Commanding, AFRO except in specific cases mentioned at Para 7 of the AFO 21/2014, which shall be exercised by ACAS (PA&C) at Air HQ. The Respondents have further submitted that the service of the Applicant has been extended for 15 years from 31.12.2010 to 30.12.2025 in four different spells by the Competent Authority taking into consideration the service requirements and the Applicant fulfilling the other eligibility criteria as envisaged in the policy for grant of extension of engagement. The Applicant is an old case of Disabilities, viz., (i) Panic Disorder,

(ii) Anisometropic Amblyopia Left Eye with moderate myopia both eyes and (iii) Fracture dislocation Ankle (Rt) with employability restrictions being unfit for HAA/ECC/CI Ops/Isolated Posts Active Combat Area/ Range Firing/ Security duties, PT/ Parade/ Sports restricted and to work under supervision. He has also severe diminution of vision (Rt more than Lt) which further makes him unfit to perform military duties like Range Firing, Security duties, etc. As regards promotion to the rank of substantive JWO, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant is holding the rank of Acting Up-paid (AUP) JWO and he was considered and empaneled for promotion to the rank of Substantive JWO in promotion panel year 2025-26 in Grade-I. His seniority was touched on 01.07.2025. As per Para 30 of Promotion Policy dt 25.08.2020, the minimum promotable category for promotion to the select ranks of JWO/WO/MWO is A4G2 (P/T) and A4G3 (P/T) (through Condonation Board). The promotion of the Applicant was not released to him being in low medical category A4G4 (P) (non- promotable) wef 04.10.2024. Further, if the Applicant upgrades his medical category from A4G4(P) to promotable medical category as per policy in vogue before expiry of his extended RE, ie., 31.12.2025, his promotion to Substantive JWO shall be considered. The Respondents have placed reliance on Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of P Venugopal Vs UOI (2008) 5 SCC 1, Hon’ble AFT (PB), New Delhi Orders dt 29.08.2023 in OA No 390/2023 in the case of JWO Prasanta Kukmari Subudhi Vs UOI & Ors and Order dt 19.01.2010 in OA No 24/2009 in the case of Ex Sgt Om Prakash Vs UOI & Ors and this Tribunal Order dt 02.05.2025 in OA No 120/2025 in the case of Sgt Nibin P Babu (ADSO) Vs UOI & Ors and Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment dt 15.07.2021 in WP (C) 1918/2010 in the case of Om Prakash Vs UOI & Ors. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Competent Authority has not granted extension of engagement to the Applicant and the Discharge Order of the Applicant has been issued for his contemplated discharge from service wef 31.12.2025 in terms of Chapter III Rule 15 [2(d)] of Air Force Rules, 1969 under clause “On transfer to Pension Establishment otherwise than his own request”. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that extension of engagement cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it shall be at the discretion of the Competent Authority keeping in view the service requirements and suitability of airmen seeking such extension. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the record placed before us.

5. Relevant paragraphs of AFO 21/2014 reads as under:- “3. This policy has been formulated to ensure that only those airmen who meet the criteria are allowed to extend their engagement. An airman who is consistent in his overall performance and willing for extension of engagement may be granted extension of engagement, which is governed by the following principles:- (a) Service requirement (as per guidelines formulated from time to time with the approval of ACAS (PA&C).

(b) Willingness for Extension of Engagement.

(c) Passing of Promotion Examinations/Training Courses.

(d) Appraisal Reports for the last sever years.

(e) Medical Fitness.

(f) Conduct Records.

(g) Suitability for Extension.

(h) Certificate of Undertaking (CoU).

4. The principles are explained below:-

(a) Service Requirement. Extension of service beyond the initial term of engagement cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It shall be at the discretion of Air HQ or such other authority, as may be specified by Air HQ to grant or deny extension of service. Grant of extension or its denial shall depend on the requirements of the service and also the suitability of the airmen seeking such extension. The methodology for assessing the service requirements will be formulated from time to time with the approval of ACAS (PA&C) at Air HQ.

(b) to (d) xxxxxx

(e) Medical Fitness. Airmen seeking extension of engagement will be medically examined as explained below:-

(i) Those in medical category A4G1, A4G2 (T/P) and A4G3 (T/P) will present themselves before AMA for medical examination and obtain their medical fitness on AFMS (F) 2A as laid down vide para 5.4.10(b) of IAP 4303 (4th edition). Those not in medical category A4G1, A4G2 (T/P) and A4G3 (T/P) are also to present themselves before AMA for medical examination and obtain their medical fitness on AFMS(F)15 as per para 5.4.19(b) of IAP 4303 (4th edition).

(ii) Refusal to undergo medical examination/review under Authorised Medical Authority (AMA)/duly constituted medical board will amount to disobedience of lawful command and would be punishable under the AF Act, 1950.

(iii) Airmen placed in medical category A4G4 (T/P) may be considered for grant of extension of engagement, if they are fit to perform their trade duties provided they meet all other conditions. However, cases for grant of extension of engagement in respect of such airmen will be considered by a Condonation Board consisting of the following members on case to case basis:-

(aa) AOC, AFRO.

(ab) Rep. of Dte of PA.

(ac) Medical Advisor, AFRO/Rep of DMS (MB).

(ad) OIC Recording Wing, AFRO.

(ae) OIC Career Planning Wing, AFRO.

(af) Rep from Specialist Dte.

(iv) The proceedings of Condonation Board mentioned at sub-sub para (iii) above, will be approved by ACAS (PA&C) at Air HQ.

(v) to (viii) xxxx”

6. In the present case, on completion of initial period of engagement of 20 years, the Applicant had been granted extension of Service for 15 years from 31.12.2010 to 30.12.2025 in four different spells by the Competent Authority taking into consideration the service requirements and the Applicant fulfilling the other eligibility criteria as envisaged in the policy for grant of extension of engagement. The Applicant was also considered for extension of engagement beyond 30.12.2025, however, it was not approved as he was in low medical category A4G4 (P) in terms of Para 4 (e) of AFO 21/2014 with employability restrictions and to work under supervision. Further, it has been well established that extension of engagement is not a matter of right but it depends on the requirement of the service and suitability of the person seeking such extension. As regards promotion to the rank of Substantive JWO, it is clear that the Applicant was placed in low medical category A4G4 (non-promotable), therefore, he was not promoted to the rank of Substantive JWO.

7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the employment restrictions due to medical condition of the Applicant, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the competent authority in not acceding to his request for extension in service from 01.01.2026 to 30.06.2028. The OA is devoid of merit and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Applications), if any, also stand disposed off.

8. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-