Back
2014 Supreme(Megh) 37
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
No. G/3400758F Rifleman/GD Santosh Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 308/2012
Decided On : 21-03-2014
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Jha, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.C. Shyam, Sr. Adv. and Mr. B. Deb, Adv.
Discharge orders must adhere to due process and not violate fundamental rights. Entitlement to pension is based on qualifying service.
Headnote:
Discharge Order - Medical Ground - Assam Rifles Medical Examination (Categorization & Invalidation) Rules, 1988 - 7, 12, 13, 14, 18
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Rifleman General Duty in Assam Rifles, was discharged on medical grounds without following due process. The petitioner challenged the discharge order on various grounds including violation of fundamental rights and procedural irregularities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the discharge order was illegal and arbitrary as it did not follow the due process of law and violated the petitioner's fundamental rights. The court set aside the discharge order and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner invalid pension considering his qualifying service of 10 years.
Issues: Violation of fundamental rights, procedural irregularities in discharge order, entitlement to invalid pension
Ratio Decidendi: The discharge order must follow due process and not violate fundamental rights. Entitlement to pension is based on qualifying service.
Final Decision: The court set aside the discharge order and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner invalid pension based on his qualifying service.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing the discharge order dated 25.02.2005 passed by the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Commandant, H.Q. 34th Assam Rifles, C/o 99 A.P.O. on medical ground "Med. Cat-CEE (P) S-3 Medical Board out discharge from service" and also the order dated 31.01.2011 that "as per the medical board proceedings, the petitioner's disease is not attributable/aggravated to service, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any invalid pension" and also for a direction to the respondents to grant disability pension/invalid pension to the petitioner. Heard Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Factual Matrix:
The petitioner was enrolled as a recruit in Assam Rifles on 10.12.1995 as a Rifleman General Duty after proper verification of his medical and physical fitness and upon completion of the training, he was posted to 2nd Assam Rifles as his parent unit. Upon raising of the new unit i.e. 34th Assam Rifles, the petitioner was posted to 34th Assam Rifles as a parent unit. In recognition of his service based on performances and dedications, the petitioner had been awarded with medals such as Samaya Seva Medal & Swatantrata Ki Swarn Jayanti Padak and other citations. To the utter shock and dismay to the petitioner, he was discharged from service on 01.03.2005 by the respondent No. 5 on medical ground by the impugned order dated 25.02.2005. The reason for discharging the petitioner from service is for medical category i.e. Med. Cat-CEE (P) S-3 Medical Board out discharge from service.
3. The respondents did not furnish the order of invalidating medical board basing on which, the petitioner had been discharged from service and also a copy of the opinion of Specialist to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner could not file the appeal to the higher authority as provided under Rule 13 of "the Assam Rifles Medical Examination (Categorization & Invalidation) Rules, 1988". Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that his right to file an appeal had been denied. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the Assam Rifles Medical Examination (Categorization & Invalidation) Rules, 1988 (for short "the Rules of 1988") had been followed by the Assam Rifles authorities in discharging Rifleman General Duty or personnel from service on medical ground. It will be profitable to quote the relevant portion of the said Rules i.e. Rules of 1988:-
Definitions
7. In this order unless otherwise specified:-
*** *** ***
(t) "SHAPE" means functional capacity and represents following factors for assessment of fitness of Cadre Officers:-
(i) S-Psychological
(ii) H-Hearing
(iii) A-Appendages
(iv) P-Physical Capacity
(v) E-Eye sight
Functional capacity of an officer under each factor shall be denoted by numerals 1 to 4 against each letter, indication declining functional efficiency. The numerals shall be written next to the code letter, except that, where a Cadre Officer is Grade I in all the factors, his category shall be denoted by writing evaluation of these numerals are:-1. Fit for all duties
2. Fit for all duties but may have limitation as to type of duties and areas of employability depending on whether the duties involve are severe stress or demand acuity of hearing/vision of both ears/eyes.
12. Medical Board for Invalidation of Personnel
(1) A Medical board for invalidation shall be convened when a person is considered medically unfit by specialist in service hospital or other hospital for further service in the Force.
(2) The convening authority of medical board for invalidation, its composition and approving authority for the purpose of sub-para (1) above shall be under:-
(c) The approving authority of the board proceedings shall be the Deputy Director-General.
13. Appeal (1) Any cadre officer or personnel aggrieved by an order of the Invalidating Medical Board may pr
