Defence personnel do not have absolute right to premature release from service: AFT rules

The Armed Forces Tribunal has ruled that members of the Armed Forces seeking premature release from service for personal reasons do not have an absolute right to leave the service on their own will.

“It is now a well settled proposition of law that grant of premature release to a member of the Armed Forces is not a right but is based on various schemes and polices and requirement of the service,” the Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Rajendra Menon and Rear Admiral Dhiren Vig ruled.

Junking the petition of a Flight Lieutenant challenging the rejection of his application for pre-mature release, the Bench relied on an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court that held that the interests of the service are of paramount importance. The Apex court had said that though Air Force orders provide for a balance between the interests of the service with situations involving requests by persons, individuals cannot assert a general right to act in breach or defiance of those orders.

The officer had sought premature separation from service on extreme compassionate grounds after having rendered about four years of commissioned service. He had claimed that after losing his father in 2016, he was the sole earning member of his family and had to take care of his ailing mother, aged grandparents and two elder sisters as well as look after family assets.

In his petition, he claimed that the action by the Air Force authorities to reject his request for premature separation twice by the Air Force authorities in 2023 and 2024 was vitiated by personal nepotism leading to his victimisation and was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He also claimed that due to his circumstances, his work performance was being adversely affected.

The Bench observed that during evaluation of the officer’s case, it was assessed by the six-member Board of Officers headed by an Air Vice Marshal that the organisation had made a substantial investment in his training and development, commencing from his days at the National Defence Academy and continuing through his initial flying training and subsequent training as an air traffic control officer.

Resultantly, the officer had demonstrated exceptional performance and had achieved a high level of proficiency in his role, considering his relatively young seniority. Besides, he was granted a home zone posting which would have enabled him to balance his professional responsibilities with his personal requirements, the Bench further noted.