The court establishes that an appointment date must reflect actual service history, exempting the petitioner from penalties for administrative delays.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. S. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

2. The grievance raised in this writ petition is for treating the appointment of the petitioner as Rifleman (GD) in the Assam Rifles from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. 23.05.2001, instead of the subsequent date of appointment, i.e. 26.05.2015, which was made pursuant to the directions of this Court.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 23.05.2001 as Rifleman (GD) after qualifying in the recruitment test and was sent for training at Assam Rifles Training Centre and School, Dimapur, Nagaland. During the course of training, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination by the authorities and was found medically unfit, consequent to which he was discharged from service w.e.f. 31.10.2001 vide discharge certificate dated 09.10.2001.

4. Aggrieved by the said order of discharge, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1766/2009. The said writ petition, along with other similar petitions, was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2012 directing the respondents to constitute a fresh Appeal/Review Medical Board to find out as to whether the petitioners were medically fit for appointment as Rifleman (GD). Pursuant thereto, a medical re-examination was conducted and the petitioner was found fit. However, his case was rejected on the ground of overage. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the rejection on the ground of overage before this Court, which was allowed and directed the respondents to call the petitioner within a period of 1 (one) month for undergoing basic training by holding that the question of overage will not come into play in the factual matrix of the case. In compliance thereof, the respondents issued a provisional appointment letter dated 26.05.2015, directing the petitioner to report to the Assam Rifles Training Centre and School, Dimapur, Nagaland.

5. Subsequently, by an order dated 13.01.2021, sanction was extended for coverage under Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of 1064 personnel. However, in the said order, the name of the petitioner was excluded by showing the date of appointment of the petitioner as 26.05.2015 and thereby placed him under National Pension System (NPS). Hence, this writ petition praying for treating the date of his appointment from the initial date of appointment on 23.05.2001 and not the subsequent date of appointment on 26.05.2015.

6. Ms. S. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that due to no fault on the part of the petitioner, he had to face hardship and harassment and only upon intervention of this Court, the grievance of the petitioner against the arbitrary action of discharge was interfered with and accordingly the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were allowed to continue in the service as Rifleman (GD). She submits that since the initial appointment made on 23.05.2001, having been preceded by necessary test including written, physical and medical test, and as the discharge of the petitioner on medical ground being interfered with by this Court, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be treated as 26.05.2015, rather same be treated from his initial appointment on 23.05.2001.

7. Ms. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment and order dated 05.04.2024, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 198/2018 (Sandeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.), submits that this Court has allowed the said writ petition which is similar with the pres