Sqn Ldr Priyanka Karwasra (Released) vs UOI & Others on 20 December 2024

**O R D E R**

**20/12/2024**

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying that the Impugned Order dated 02/4/2019 may be quashed and set aside and the Respondents may be directed to reinstate the applicant in service and to grant four years' extension of service to the applicant while maintaining her original seniority with all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was commissioned in the Technical Branch of the Indian Air Force on 13/7/2009

for a period of 10 + 4 years (extension) of service. During the span of her 10 years of service, the applicant served as an Officer at Air Force Station Bagdogra, Suratgarh and Hindan. She had an unblemished career and her career performance was also appreciated by her superiors. She also attended various service courses. The applicant was awarded Chief of the Air Staff Medal in October 2014 for her courageous act of completing High Altitude Cycling. While posted at Air Force Station, Suratgarh, the applicant was selected as Deputy Team Leader for IAF – BSF Camel Expedition aiming to set longest all women camel expedition record, which was aimed at spreading Beti Bachao Beti Padhao Movement as also motivate the girls of the region to join the armed forces. The applicant was a highly motivated and dedicated officer and she always put service before self. However, suddenly the applicant got the impugned Order dated 02/4/2019, by which the extension of the applicant has been denied by the air force authorities, stating that the applicant was not meeting the minimum Qualitative criteria as laid down in HRP 11/2007. The applicant further submits that professional category of the applicant got revalidated on 03/6/2019 by clearing written/viva/practical exam and the medical category of the applicant was also the same as that at the time of commissioning. She also came to know that her 2 ARs at the Air Force Station, Suratgarh were unfairly and invalidly filled and the applicant was unfairly and improperly under-assessed and as a consequence of that by a little margin she was denied further extension of service. On 15/4/2019, the applicant had sent an Application through proper channel, requesting for review of her release. In her application dated 09/4/2019, the applicant has forwarded an application for personal interview with ACAS PO, through proper channel, which was forwarded to the concerned authority with recommendation of Air Officer Commanding, Annexure A/7, in which the applicant clearly mentioned that two Annual Confidential Reports of Air Force Station, Suratgarh needs attention, which was followed by yet another application dated 15/4/2019 on the same subject, highlighting her plea of allowing her to participate in the IAF-BSF Camel Expedition, as the senior of the applicant was not willing to let the applicant participate in the programme. The applicant was interviewed by the ACAS PO at Air HQ on 29/5/2019, but till date the authorities have not intimated the outcome of the interview. On 03/7/2019, the applicant had received a communication vide which her request for review of her release from service was rejected due to extant policy. Further, the applicant had also approached the Chief of the Air Staff through online forum for review of her ARs.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts stated that the applicant, who was commissioned in the Indian Air Force under 10+4 Rationalised Scheme, had applied for an extension of service for four years. Her case was considered for grant of extension of service alongwith her peers by a Board of Officers held in Feb 2019, but the applicant did not meet the requisite QRs in terms of ARs as per Para 6 (c) of HRP 11/2007 which stipulates that, "an officer coming up for extension (Rationalised Schemes) must have a minimum average of 7.0 in the last three ARs". Hence, the Board of Officers recommended that she was to be released from service on completion of her initial SSC tenure, ie, wef 12/7/2019, Annexure R/1. The applicant has been an average performer which is evident from the CGPAs secured in the various mandatory courses (BASCO, BPKC and IA SCO). Also, the applicant's participation in the IAF Women High Altitude Expedition and the Joint IAF-BSF All Women Camel Contingent has been positively commented in the ARS of 2015 and 2018 respectively. However, there is no record of award/medal by the Chief of the Air Staff and the same has also not been brought out by the applicant in the relevant Para, ie, Para 3 (d) given in the appraisal form, IAFF (P) 57-A for this purpose. The Respondents have further stated that the assessment is made on individual traits listed in the AR form based on the demonstrated performance and manifested behavior during the period of report. These traits/qualities are specific to the rank and the tasks on which an officer is employed during the period of report. The professional and behavioural facts are listed in separate paras. Both the factors have ten traits/qualities each for assessment. Out of these, two in Professional and four in Behavioural are mandatory qualities. Assessments follow a standardized methodology leaving minimal scope for subjectivity. Grading in each traits is awarded in whole number 1 to 9 which must be commensurate with the pen picture and in line with the rating scale provided in the AFO. A total grading in individual trait makes a final aggregate total in professional and behavioural factors respectively. Each appraisal report is reviewed at multiple levels, ie, IO/RO/SRO/Command HQ and Air HQ, wherein appropriate corrective measures are taken to ensure that a justified assessment is carried out of appraisee's performance during the period of report. As per records the applicant is single and mentioning that she never asked for maternity leave and child care leave is illogical.

4. We have heard the counsels for the parties at length during the hearing as also perused the material placed on record.

5. Based on the specific directions of this Tribunal, the Respondents have placed on record the entire ACR profile of the applicant and the policy formulated by the Air HQ with regard to grant of extension to Short Service Commissioned Officers, as stipulated in their letter dated 07/11/2007 in a sealed envelope. The perusal of these documents reveal that the appraisal reports of the applicant for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 have been fair and objective and in all these reports, all the three reporting officers have graded the applicant at below the Benchmark. At the Air HQ/Command HQ, the reports of the IO, RO and the SRO have been evaluated as, "Endorsed" for all the three years' reports. Also, we could not see any trace of bias in the assessment made by the assessing/reporting officers. It has also been seen that the Board of Officers for extension of service was carried out on 21/2/2019 as per the provisions of HRP 11/2007, wherein ARs of 2016, 2017 and 2018 were taken into consideration. Since the applicant does not fulfil the Minimum Performance Criteria stipulated in the ibid HRP for grant of extension of service (Rationalised Scheme), in the last three ARs under consideration in each of professional and behavioral factors, she was not recommended for extension of service after completion of initial tenure of 10 years.

6. In view of the foregoing and having perused the overall performance of the applicant as has been brought out by the Respondents in her original records, we find no bias or subjectivity in the assessment made by the reporting officers, depriving the applicant the grant of further extension in service. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the action taken by the Respondents in releasing the applicant on culmination of her initial terms of engagement in terms of extant policy is just, right and there is no infirmity in their action. The plea of the applicant has no merit and is, therefore, rejected.

7. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

**(SANJIV MITTAL)** **MEMBER (A)**

**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)** **MEMBER (J)**

cda/-