JUDGMENT 1. - At joint request, matter has been finally heard and is being disposed of at admission stage. 2. By instant petition, petitioner while working as Wing Commander in Indian Air Force has assailed order dated 22.03.06 (Ann. 22) whereby his request for resignation has been declined. 3. Petitioner initially joined Air Force, in 1986 and commissioned in Transport Stream of Indian Air Force ('IAF') on 16.06.90 as Permanent Commission Officer; and has been promoted as Wing Commander with effect from 16.12.04 vide order (Ann. R/12) and would attain age of superannuation on 29.02.2020. For unforseen circumstances of his family particularly litigation of ancestral property; his mother's illness, he initially submitted application for his premature retirement on compassionate grounds on 31.01.05 which was rejected by competent authority. Thereafter he again submitted his second application for premature retirement on 13.07.2005 with one additional ground of his conjugal break-up as he received legal notice for divorce on behalf of his wife- that too was turned out on the ground that one year period has not elapsed after rejection of first application and there was no material change in his application, as per head quarter's policy in regard to premature retirement. 4. Petitioner thereafter submitted application tendering resignation by reiterating same reasons as stated earlier in application seeking premature retirement; such as conjugal break-up and litigation of ancestral property besides mother's illness. After receipt of application in the office of respondents, Senior Officer inquired in regard to his conjugal break-up, litigation of ancestral property, and mother's illness, and submitted fact verification report as is evident from Ann. R/2, which gives out complete details about correctness of unforseen circumstances assigned by petitioner in his application tendering resignation. 5. Matter was placed before concerned authority and after taking into consideration fact verification report, ibid, besides other material on record it was observed that petitioner after commission of 16/05/90, joined transport stream and rendered 15 years & 3 months service and is in possession of current ATPL. Officers at higher level also recommended for rejecting his application. 5. Matter was placed before concerned authority and after taking into consideration fact verification report, ibid, besides other material on record it was observed that petitioner after commission of 16/05/90, joined transport stream and rendered 15 years & 3 months service and is in possession of current ATPL. Officers at higher level also recommended for rejecting his application. Record pertaining to applications of petitioners either for premature retirement and tendering resignation has been placed for my perusal from which it transpires that his application has been considered extensively at all levels and officers throughout recommended that request for his resignation deserves to be rejected and finally his application for resignation was declined vide order dated 07.03.06 (Ann. R/10) and communicated to him vide letter dated 22.03.06 (Ann. 22). 6. Counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that applications initially submitted for premature retirement and subsequently for resignation both have been considered and examined by respondents on same footing and thus very procedure adopted while considering his application tendering resignation is contrary to the Scheme of Regulations for the Air Force, 1964; and such action of respondents deserves to be set aside. 7. Counsel further submits that petitioner has rendered army service for almost 17 years by now and as per report of review of Management of Defence (IAF) Vision 2020 (Ann. 23) in terms of Clause 4.39, costs of training to an officer is recovered after an officer has served for 8 years; as such what has been spent by respondents to train the petitioner has already been recovered after he has served for 8 years. Counsel submits that in terms of Clause 4.39, ibid, those officers who are not considered promotable due to -their merit may be permitted to be released from service after three attempt sat promotion to Gp. Capts by the IAR i.e. at 15+3 = 18 years of service and thus there is no need to serve the IAF for petitioner and there is hardly restraint for respondents to decline petitioner from tendering resignation; and such action in no manner can be said to be legally sustainable. 8. Counsel also submits that no reasons have been assigned as to why his application alongwith reasons assigned therein tendering resignation are not acceptable by competent authority in absence whereof very rejection impugned is not sustainable and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. Counsel also submits that no reasons have been assigned as to why his application alongwith reasons assigned therein tendering resignation are not acceptable by competent authority in absence whereof very rejection impugned is not sustainable and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of contention, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Delhi High Court (DB) in Major Rahul Shukia v. Union of India, 1995 Delhi Law Times 573 (Ann. 26). 9. Counsel further submits that respondents have accepted such we 1 applications of a number of his junior or senior officers-details whereof have been furnished in para 16 of rejoinder to the reply alongwith documents in support thereof (Ann. 24 to 37) on the basis whereof Counsel submits that respondents have adopted totally different standards and their action is illegal and the communication of rejection does not disclose as to why his application has not been acceptable by the respondents. 10. Reply to writ petition has been filed by respondents inter-alia averring that application for retirement/resignation has to be considered in terms of para 215 of Regulations for Air Force 1964 are process in the same I manner as per para 216 of Air Force Regulations, 1964 and as per Circular issued by Ministry of Defence, request for premature retirement/resignation has to be considered on individual facts on recommendation of Chief of Staff concerned who will keep in view manpower situation and operational requirement of services. Further case in counter is that grounds of each 1 application normally are to be taken note for recommendation to the Government either taken of supersession of extreme compassionate ground or lower medical category or better employment in civil life or participation in political activities etc., and since petitioner submitted application for resignation under the Scheme on compassionate grounds because of unforseen circumstances in the family viz. his conjugal break-up, mother's illness and litigation of ancestral property. Facts referred to in his application have been examined by officer who submitted his facts verification report (Ann. R/2) and it revealed that facts referred to were exaggerated. 11. his conjugal break-up, mother's illness and litigation of ancestral property. Facts referred to in his application have been examined by officer who submitted his facts verification report (Ann. R/2) and it revealed that facts referred to were exaggerated. 11. Further case in the reply is that petitioner's apparent desperation to find out outcome of his application for premature retirement/resignation was unfounded because he was well aware that besides fact verification being made by IAF at all levels to give due consideration to request for premature retirement/resignation on merits of each case and seek convergence of individual aspirations and service interest besides taking note of trained manpower vis-a-vis operational requirement of services which is paramount consideration to be kept in mind by the decision making authority. Fact verification of his grounds on which premature retirement/resignation sought for, was made by Army Head CAC by considering material on record of verification extracts of report dated 24.05.05 (Ann. R/2) quoted in reply at page 10 read as follows : "(a) The petitioners' mother is a retired Head Mistress and staying in a two room set in her ancestral house. The major portion of this house is rented out and the rent is collected by the lady herself; (b) on informing the petitioner's mother that her son has applied for premature retirement, she casually stated that majority of his friends/course mate has taken discharge from service and joined, civil airlines and that her son also wanted to follow suit. (c) Brothers of petitioners averred that there no dispute with the petitioner over division. of property and matter. The matter would be resolved amicably. (d) The mother of petitioner is self reliant and independent. Her ailments were normal at her age. She is having her medicines regularly and her condition does not warrant constant attention." 12. Respondents further averred that petitioner has been promoted as Wing Commander on 16.12.2004 vide order (Ann. R/12) and hardly served institution thereafter for one year and looking to problems which he has pointed out, the authority has always kept in mind about convergence of individual inspirations and service exigency while keeping officers over all interest in mind, respondents have posted petitioner to his home zone Kota vide order (Ann. 13). R/12) and hardly served institution thereafter for one year and looking to problems which he has pointed out, the authority has always kept in mind about convergence of individual inspirations and service exigency while keeping officers over all interest in mind, respondents have posted petitioner to his home zone Kota vide order (Ann. 13). Further case in reply is that application of petitioner for premature retirement & resignation has been considered at head quarter Air Force and CAC after facts were inquired into by authority of verification to grounds urged by petitioner seeking either for premature retirement or resignation, the higher authority assigned reasons that application of petitioner was found to be duly exaggerated. 13. Counsel for respondents submits that each and every application has to be considered on merits of individual case and there cannot be any comparison with other officers whose application has either been rejected or accepted by the authority and this cannot be ruled out that petitioner's qualification, experience and training, civil aviation sector is the best option outside IAF more so when presently there is a growing need of commercial pilots because of induction of numerous private Airlines. Counsel further submits that application of petitioner assigning reasons for seeking either premature retirement or resignation were considered at all levels and initial facts verification was sought by fact inquiring officer and thereafter examined at all higher levels, all recommended for rejection of his application and thus finally application seeking resignation was declined by the authority. 14. As regards reasons for rejection, no doubt, though reasons are ordinarily to be recorded, but since non-assignment of reasons does not affect service conditions of officer whether application is accepted or rejected, and even if reasons are not communicated that will not hold action to be bad if the material is available on record, which can be considered by the Court for its satisfaction. In support of contention, Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in Major Sunil Kumar v. Union, 2006 Mil LJ 226 . 15. I have considered contention of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance pondered over material brought on record. Indisputably, petitioner joined Transport Stream in Indian Air Force on 16th June, 1990 as Permanent Commission Officer and was promoted as Wing Commander with effect from 16.12.2004 vide order (Ann. 15. I have considered contention of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance pondered over material brought on record. Indisputably, petitioner joined Transport Stream in Indian Air Force on 16th June, 1990 as Permanent Commission Officer and was promoted as Wing Commander with effect from 16.12.2004 vide order (Ann. R/12)-after one year whereof, though was to be superannuated in the year 2020 but submitted applications one after the other seeking premature retirement & thereafter for resignation initially on compassionate grounds and subsequently of his conjugal break-up besides two unforeseen circumstances viz., litigation of his ancestral property and mother's illness. His request for premature retirement/resignation was scrutinised at all levels including facts verifying authority of inquiry, which were taken note of by HO CAC IAF so also by competent higher authority-all of whom recommended for rejection as is evident from original file produced in course of arguments by Officers present in Court-a careful look whereupon depicts that officer's conversion on IL-76 has not commenced on instruction of SASO, HQ CAC who did not want to waste valuable resources of an officer and primarily because there is a requirement to have IL-76 qualified aircrew in the near future, to cater for induction of AWACS while he has only completed 1 year and 03 months at Nagpur. Petitioner is 'not spare able' as he has got less than 20 years of service and has got a current ATPL. It has also been opined that petitioner is laterally adjusted to MC Comn. Fit to fly AVRO ac, on which he is already qualified. 16. For criteria for premature retirement/resignation of Defence Service Officers, Circular has been issued on 05th July, 1973 duly modified on 23rd December, 1976-relevant extract whereof reads as under : "Ministry of Defence D (Pens/Sers) Subject : Criteria for premature retirement/resignation of Defence Services Officers 1. Criteria for acceptance of requests from Defence Services Officers for premature retirement/Resignation were laid down and circulated under this Ministry's U.O. No. 3(3)71/D(N-II)/D(Pen/Sers), dated the 5th July, 1973 and modified under U.O.No.1(1)/76/ D/(Pen/Sers) dated 23rd December, 1976. 2. It has been decided that in future, requests for premature retirement/resignation from Defence Services Officers will continue to be considered on individual merits on the recommendation of Chief of Staff concerned who will keep in view the manpower situation and the operational requirements of the services. 2. It has been decided that in future, requests for premature retirement/resignation from Defence Services Officers will continue to be considered on individual merits on the recommendation of Chief of Staff concerned who will keep in view the manpower situation and the operational requirements of the services. The grounds on which application should normally be recommended to the Government for consideration will be as under : (b) Extreme compassionate grounds : Requests on extreme compassionate grounds will be considered after the facts represented by the officer are verified, to the extent possible by the Service Headquarters. Such verification is necessary to ensure that the grounds are genuine. Domestic problems such as need to look after ailing parents, inheritance problems, need to look after family business, serious illness of wife requiring officer's presence at home, possibility of break-up of conjugal life if the officer continues in service etc. would be treated as compassionate grounds depending on the circumstances of each case. Procedure has been provided under Chapter V of Regulations for the Air Force, 1964-para 216 whereof reads as under : "Para 216. Application for Retirement/Resignation (a) Applications of officers to retire from the service or to resign their commissions are to be forwarded through authorised channels to Air Headquarters for the orders of the Government. The applicant is to give prospective date from which it is desired that the retirement or resignation should take effect and will, if possible, submit his application not less than three months before that date. (b) An officer desirous of retiring or resigning on the expiration of leave to which he may be entitled under the rules in force is to submit his application to retire or resign together with his application for leave through the authorised channels to Air Headquarters; (c) Application for retirement/resignation is to be accompanied by a written undertaking from the officer that he will not enter the service under a Government outside India at any time after his retirement/resignation without first obtaining permission of the government. (d) In forwarding an application the commanding officer when it is the result of misconduct or anything affecting the honour of an officer or his character as a gentleman, is to state all circumstances and particulars of the case. The authority responsible for forwarding a statement to the Air Headquarters is to ascertain that it gives a complete account of the case. The authority responsible for forwarding a statement to the Air Headquarters is to ascertain that it gives a complete account of the case. Commanding officer is also to state whether all outstanding non-public claims have been paid & if there is any objection to resignation/retirement being sanctioned. (e) When an officer applies to retire or resign he is to state in his application whether there are any claims against him within his knowledge. The commanding officer in forwarding the application is to report whether. (i) all local claims against the officer have been paid, (ii) there are any outstanding claims local or other. As regards (ii) a statement, of the accountant officer is to be attached giving particulars of any advances which may have been made but not notified to be Air Force Central Accounts Office or of public money still to be accounted for by the officer. Any advances subsequently made must be specifically notified to the Air Force Central Accounts Office on the date of payment." From criteria and the procedure laid down by defence for premature/resignation, it emerges that no material distinction has been made in process of such applications. But it only regulates in regard to non-effective benefits, which an officer is entitled for seeking retirement after having rendered minimum period of IAF service. Thus permanent commission officer who have rendered service of more than 20 years are entitled for pension at appropriate rates subject to service rendered being satisfactory but such officers having rendered service for 10 years or more but less than 20 years but having become eligible for gratuity or a percentage whereof is granted in accordance with certain working principles evolved earlier. Except what has been referred to (supra), a criterion/procedure to examine either of premature retirement or resignation laid down by respondent is one and the same. 17. Petitioner submitted application for resignation in fact on extreme compassionate grounds particularly of his conjugal break, mother illness and litigation of ancestral property. Except what has been referred to (supra), a criterion/procedure to examine either of premature retirement or resignation laid down by respondent is one and the same. 17. Petitioner submitted application for resignation in fact on extreme compassionate grounds particularly of his conjugal break, mother illness and litigation of ancestral property. On fact verification, reasons which were assigned on his application either of premature retirement or resignation pondered, it was revealed that petitioner in fact has exaggerated it and made the issue so that he can get rid of defence service and it appears that his application has been considered after fact verification report was submitted by his immediate officer throughout at all levels independently and taking note of his family problems and his requirement for institution, it was finally considered that it would not be appropriate to accept his application at this stage and recommended for rejection by Army head quarter after detailed examination, which was finally accepted by Ministry of Defence. 18. This cannot be ruled out that service jurisprudence made applicable to civil service cannot be ipso facto extended to defence service which are of class of themselves and therein considerations with regard to secrecy, security and safety and sovereignty plays vital role enabling personal interest to be sacrificed for or giving way to the larger interests of the nation. Thus request for resigning from employment is not a absolute right free of restrictions, as it may be in civil services. 19. After having gone through original record placed before this Court in course of arguments and taking note of fact verification report (Ann. R/2), I find that the authority after due application of mind took decision rejecting application of petitioner seeking resignation. I do not find any error in their administrative decision, which is duly supported by material on record and does not call for interference. 20. R/2), I find that the authority after due application of mind took decision rejecting application of petitioner seeking resignation. I do not find any error in their administrative decision, which is duly supported by material on record and does not call for interference. 20. Submissions made by Counsel about two different standards being adopted; non-disclosure/communication or reasons besides consideration for rejection of his application on same footing either for pre-mature retirement or resignation are of no substance for the reason that each application has to be individually considered on merits of circumstances disclosed therein either for premature or resignation and there is no material on record to draw otherwise inference that officer whose application has been accepted either for premature retirement or resignation, as the case may be- in absence whereof no opinion either way can be expressed. As regards non- disclosure/communication of reasons, It would have been better if reasons were disclosed in their order impugned but since non-disclosure does not affect service conditions of officer and from original file made available for perusal of this Court besides fact verification report (Ann. R.2), find that there was sufficient material before respondents prior to taking decision impugned and even otherwise it has not caused any prejudice to petitioner, so as to call for interference. 21. From the criteria (supra) either for accepting or rejecting request of defence personnel seeking for premature retirement/resignation, I find that considerations are one and the same under relevant regulations except that those who have retired after 20 years, they get pension at appropriate rate. But those seeking resignation after 10 years or less than 20 years of service are eligible on certain different workable pension. Otherwise, ultimate test of considerations either for premature retirement or resignation are the same since officer intends to relinquish his office for one or the other reason. That apart, reasons assigned by petitioner seeking for premature retirement or resignation on account of illness of his mother or dispute pending litigation of ancestral property all were found to be exaggerated as is evident from fact verification report (Ann. R. 2); yet respondents kept in view over all considerations and posted petitioner in his home-zone at Kota so as to meet out his family problems referred to in application seeking resignation also. Thus submission made has no substance. 22. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. R. 2); yet respondents kept in view over all considerations and posted petitioner in his home-zone at Kota so as to meet out his family problems referred to in application seeking resignation also. Thus submission made has no substance. 22. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******