Tenure of service under the Act

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Union Of India vs Parashotam Dass

   Supreme Court of India 21 Mar 2023 Binding (Supreme Court - Three Judge Bench with Constitutional implications) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise judicial review is not inhibited, and a complete bar on the exercise of such jurisdiction by the High Court to review decisions arising from the Armed Forces Tribunal cannot be sustained as it would violate the basic structure of the Constitution. While High Courts must exercise self-restraint and recognize the distinct nature of the Armed Forces Tribunal, they retain the power to grant appropriate relief if the Tribunal's proceedings result in denial of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. does not lay down the correct law and is overruled.

   On this section: Matters relating to orders under Section 18 are excluded from Tribunal jurisdiction as per Section 3(o) of Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Union of India vs Rajeev Moitra

   Supreme Court of India 29 Jan 2019 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The right to withdraw from an approved application for Premature Separation from Service in the Indian Air Force is neither absolute nor unconditional. While officers have a substantive right to continue in service until superannuation, once they apply for PSS under the Human Resource Policy and their application is approved, the withdrawal of such approval is subject to the conditions stipulated in Paragraph 18 of the policy, namely that withdrawal is permitted only as an exception and on 'extreme compassionate grounds'. The general principle of civil service law permitting withdrawal of prospective resignations before effective date does not apply to the Armed Forces without modification, because: (1) service in the Armed Forces operates under a distinct constitutional and statutory framework centered on at-pleasure tenure and organizational efficiency; (2) the Human Resource Policy, validly issued under delegated authority, explicitly conditions withdrawal and restricts it to exceptional circumstances; (3) officers who seek benefit of the PSS policy cannot later repudiate its terms, including the withdrawal restriction in Paragraph 18; and (4) the operational exigencies of the Armed Forces, including manpower planning and allocation of exit vacancies, necessitate limiting unilateral withdrawal rights. Whether grounds cited meet the 'extreme compassionate grounds' criterion is for competent authority to determine bona fide, and courts should not fault a fair and bona fide assessment made in light of service requirements.

   On this section: Provides that tenure of service is during the pleasure of the President; establishes the at-pleasure tenure doctrine for military service

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.