SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AFT) 25

ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR
Sanjiv Mittal, J
Ex LD Opr Jawahar SinghUOI & Others
OA No. 02/2015



Advocates:
For Appellants/Petitioners: Yashveer Singh, Manvendra Singh, Himanshu
For Respondents: Yuvraj Singh

Sheltered appointment in the Army is not a matter of right; the Commanding Officer has the discretion to discharge personnel based on operational requirements and the availability of suitable appointments.

Headnote:The applicant sought the quashing of a discharge order dated 06.05.2014, requesting continued service until superannuation or a medical board examination by a more equipped hospital to assess his disability (Epilepsy) for pensionary benefits, citing Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The primary issues concerned whether the applicant had a right to sheltered appointment and whether the discharge process was arbitrary or discriminatory. The court reasoned that sheltered appointment is not a matter of right and is subject to the discretion of the Commanding Officer based on operational efficiency and organizational requirements, citing that the validity of the relevant regulations had already been upheld by a Full Bench. The OA is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

Table of Content
1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6)

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed to quash and set aside impugned Order dt 06.05.2014 and direct the Respondents to continue the Applicant in service till the age of superannuation and conduct the medical board of the Applicant by a well equipped hospital to ascertain his present medical condition and if the Applicant is found to be in low medical category, he should be considered for grant of disability benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 30.10.1994 in physically and medically fit condition and has been performing his duties with zeal and enthusiasm. The Applicant was issued with Show Cause Notice dt 29.03.2014 for his contemplated discharge from service on account of his placement in low medical category which he replied on 01.04.2014 praying for allowing him in service due to his domestic compulsions. But without considering the request of the Applicant, the Respondents issued Discharge Order on 06.05.2014 for his discharge from Service on 28.02.2015. The Respondents also directed the Applicant to vacate the Government Accommodation allotted to him vide letters dt 21.04.2014 and 26.04.2014. The Applicant made representation to allow him to retain Government Accommodation due to his domestic compulsions but he was not allowed to retain the same. Thereafter, the Applicant has been directed to appear before the Release Medical Board to 184 Military Hospital which is not well equipped with all the facilities and cannot conduct proper medical of the Applicant as the Applicant is suffering from the disability "Localised Related Epilepsy". Therefore, he prayed that his Release Medical Board should be conduct by other Military Hospital who is competent to examine the Applicant for the Disability to ascertain as to whether the Applicant is suffering from the above disability or not and if he is suffering from the disability, he should be considered for grant of Disability Pension. The Applicant submits that meanwhile, he was communicated vide letter dt 23.09.2014 about his non-entitlement for disability pension under Rule 173A of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1) as he was suffering from the Disability "Localised Related Epilepsy" which was considered as Attributable to Military Service. The Applicant submits that there are other low medical category personnel also in the Unit but the Applicant alone has been prejudicially been directed to the discharged from service on medical grounds. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and raised preliminary objections on the grounds that the OA suffers from plural remedies contrary to Rule 10 of AFT (Procedure) Rules, 2008 as the Applicant is seeking quashing off the discharge order and for grant of disability pension and both are independent of each other and not consequential to one another and, hence, the OA is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. The Respondents have further submitted that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 30.11.1994. The Applicant was placed in permanent low medical category P2 (P) for disability "Localised Related Epilepsy" wef 19.11.2012 to 19.11.2014 with employment restrictions "Not fit for duties at hilly terrain, altitudes above 2500 meters and extreme cold areas and not to drive/swim/op machinery, not to handle fire arms/ live ammunition and also prohibited to work without supervisions. Therefore, after considering the reply of the Applicant to Show Cause Notice as well as organizational interest, the Applicant was recommended to be discharged from Service on medical grounds. The Applicant has been in sheltered employment. Army Order 46/80 deals with such category of personnel which states that employment of permanent low medical category personnel at all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top