IMPORTANT POINT
The lack of fault on the petitioner's part and the precedent of granting benefits to a similarly situated individual justified the court's decision to allow the petitioner's claim for appointment from 2008.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel (C.G.C) appearing for the respondents.

2. The claim raised in this writ petition which is filed by the petitioner is with regard to treating the appointment of the petitioner as General Duty (Driver) in the Assam Rifles from the date of the initial appointment in the year 2008 and not the subsequent date which was pursuant to certain directions of this Court.

3. There is a chequered history of this case and a brief narration would be necessary.

4. In the year 2008, a recruitment process was initiated, amongst others, for the post of General Duty (Driver) along with post of Rifleman under the Assam Rifles.

5. In the said recruitment, the petitioner who had offered his candidature was recruited as a General Duty (Driver) personal with the Assam Rifles with effect from 10.12.2008. After such appointment, he was sent for training with effect from 31.12.2008. However, in the midst of such training on 19.05.2009, the petitioner fell sick and had to be hospitalized at different military hospitals and on 20.11.2009, he was discharged from the hospital with a fitness certificate as category P-2. Thereafter, on 03.05.2010, the petitioner was sent to the Assam Rifles Composite Hospital for medical review. There, he was given medical certificate as Shape I and finally, he was discharged by the Assam Rifles Composite Hospital on 22.05.2010. After his discharge, the Petitioner reported back for duty.

6. However, subsequently, the petitioner was discharged from service by a discharge certificate dated 07.07.2010, thereby discharging the petitioner on and from 31.07.2010 on the ground that his stay at Assam Rifles Training Centre and School was exceeding 24 (twenty four) months.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being WP(C) (SH) 208/13 before the High Court of Meghalaya, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.02.2014 wherein the discharge certificate was set aside with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and allow him to continue with the rest part of his training.

8. Against the said order dated 13.02.2014, the respondents filed a writ appeal, being W.A. No. 25/2014 arising out of WP(C) (SH) No.208/2013 which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 26.02.2015. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, by letter dated 23.5.2015, the petitioner was reinstated as Recruit General Duty (Driver) and accordingly the petitioner joined his duty on 25.07.2015.

9. It is the claim of the petitioner that his appointment should be given effect and regularized from the initial date of appointment i.e. 10.12.2008 with a further claim for payment of arrear salaries and other benefits which the petitioner is legally entitled to in all respects.

10. Ms. K. Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to no fault of the petitioner, he had to face all the harassment and only upon intervention by this Court, the matter was sorted out. It is submitted that the initial appointment made on 10.12.2008 having been preceded by the necessary tests, including written, physical and medical and the discharge of the petitioner vide discharge certificate dated 07.07.2010, thereby discharging the petitioner on and from 31.07.2010, being interfered with by this Court, the claim of the petitioner is reasonable, justified and bona fide.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that similarly situated person have been given the benefits. In this connection, reference has been made to an order dated 07.06.2019 passed by this Court in Review Petition No. 111/2018 filed by one Sant Lal. The learned counsel accordingly submits that there should not be any impediment in granting the relief as prayed for.

12. Per contra, Ms. Gayan, the learned C.G.C. has submitted that the petitioner was re-appointed only in the year 2015, pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2014 passed i