Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, directed the Air Force authorities to issue a No Objection Certificate and discharge certificate in favour of an airman who had left service to join the Jammu & Kashmir Administrative Service without obtaining prior clearance, subject to his depositing Rs. 3,00,000 with the Air Force within two months. The Court was examining a challenge to the rejection of the airman's discharge request, where the Air Force contended he had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria permitting departure from service to take up a civil post. Acknowledging that applicable service orders did not support the petitioner's case, the Court nonetheless extended equitable relief, finding that the passage of nearly seven years since he left service and the attendant consequences of re-induction made strict enforcement disproportionate in the circumstances.

The petitioner, an Airman enrolled in the Indian Air Force in 2006, challenged the rejection of his request for discharge after his selection to the Junior Scale of the Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service. His engagement with the Air Force was due to expire in 2026. In 2016, he applied for the J&K Combined Competitive Examination after seeking permission from the competent Air Force authority. Permission was denied on the ground that the post did not fall under Group ‘A’. Despite this, he appeared in the examination, qualified, and was selected.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Enforcement Of Solid Waste Management Rules 2026

Following his appointment, he sought discharge from service. His initial request was returned as the selected post was classified as Group ‘B’. A subsequent application was recommended by a superior officer, who also suggested waiver of non-compliance with relevant Air Force Orders. However, the competent authority rejected the request. The respondents contended that applicable Air Force Orders required seven years of service and application to a Group ‘A’ post, and further stipulated prior permission. They also relied on eligibility conditions under AFO 4/2012 and AFO 33/2017.

On the question of eligibility, the Court recorded that the post applied for by the petitioner carried a grade pay of Rs. 4,800/- with a maximum pay of Rs. 34,800/-, and that Respondent No. 9 had clearly stated in its report that the post falls in Group B when equated with pay scales applicable to employees of the Government of India. The Court stated that the contention of the petitioner that the post falls in Group-A, as similar posts in some other states carry higher grade pay, was "without any basis."

On the applicability of AFO No. 16/2008, the Court observed that the said order "does not apply to cases relating to selection to civil posts" and that para 6 of the order was "very clear about it," recording that the petitioner's contention in this regard was "without any merit."

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Kumar Roy v. Union of India, the Court referred to the following observations made therein: "A person who has been enrolled as a member of the Air Force does not have an unqualified right to depart from service at his or her will during the term of engagement. Such a construction, as urged on behalf of the appellant, will seriously impinge upon manning levels and operational preparedness of the armed forces." It was further noted therein that "the interests of the service are of paramount importance" and that "a person enrolled cannot assert a general right to act in breach or defiance of those orders."

Turning to the personal background of the petitioner, the Court observed that he "belongs to a far flung village of district Doda" where militancy was prevalent during his schooling years, that "both his parents were uneducated hailing from an economically weaker background" and that "he has undergone studies after facing acute hardships and difficulties." The Court further noted that "he had to join employment with Indian Air Force so as to feed himself and his family" and that "even while he was performing his job with Indian Air Force, he continued to work hard and completed his graduation."

It was additionally observed that the petitioner, "without any formal coaching and without any regular studies, obtained the requisite merit in the Combined Competitive Examination" and that "this attitude of the petitioner and his urge to attain higher goals and excellence in his career is required to be appreciated and encouraged."

On the petitioner's service conduct, the Court noted that "even while performing his duties with Air Force, the petitioner had shown great dedication" and that "the petitioner had no disciplinary violations in his service."

On the question of equitable relief, the Court observed that the petitioner "has potential to attain great heights in his career" and that "denying him permission to continue his service as an Officer of the J&K Administrative Service would work very harshly against him and in fact would discourage and dishearten him immensely, that would lead to wastage of a great talent." It further stated that "the petitioner has left Air Force in the year 2019 and since then about seven years have elapsed, therefore, no purpose will be served in directing his re-induction in the Indian Air Force as the same would expose him to disciplinary action and would also end his excellent career in J&K Administrative Service."

The Court nonetheless stated that "the petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot free as he has clearly been guilty of breach of conditions of his service in Air Force" and that "appropriate conditions need to be attached for permitting the petitioner to seek discharge and continue his service as an officer of the J&K Administrative Service."

Also Read: Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Be Justified Solely By Gravity Of Allegations; J&K&L High Court Grants Bail To Relatives Accused Of Abetment In POCSO Case

The Court ordered that “the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to issue NOC and discharge certificate in favour of the petitioner subject to deposition of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) with the Air Force authorities within two months of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case, any amount is due to the petitioner from the Air Force, the aforesaid amount shall be set off against the dues.” The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate

Case Title: Himmat Kumar Raina v. Union of India & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2026: JKLHC-JMU:331
Case Number: WP(C) No. 4190/2019
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar