Gauhati HC Allows Plea By Riflemen Challenging 'Break In Service' Due To Discharge Based On Unsubstantiated Claims Of Not Being Medically Fit

The Gauhati High Court has recently allowed a writ petition over the issue of treatment of appointment from the initial year of 2001, filed by six Rifleman (GD) of Assam Rifles who were discharged from service in 2001 on the ground that they were medically unfit during their basic training.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed:

“……this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioners to hold their appointment from the year 2001 appears to be justified as the so called break in their service is not attributable to any fault of the petitioners and in fact the impugned decisions of the authorities firstly to discharge them on the ground of being medically unfit and secondly to decline appointment on the ground of being over aged have been consistently interfered with by this Court.”

The petitioners raised their claim in the writ petition with regard to treating the appointments of the petitioners as Rifleman (GD) from the date of the initial appointment in the year 2001 and not the subsequent date which was pursuant to certain directions of the High Court in the year 2015.

The facts of the case disclose that in the year 2001, a recruitment process was initiated, amongst others, for the post of Rifleman (GD) under the Assam Rifles. The petitioners who had offered their candidatures were held to be qualified in the written, physical and medical tests and upon their selection, they were appointed on May 23, 2001.

After such an appointment, they were sent for basic training which is for a period of 9 months. However, in the midst of such training, vide an order dated October 31, 2001, the petitioners along with a few others were discharged from service on the ground that they were medically unfit. Since the aforesaid action was not preceded by any notice or opportunity, separate writ petitions were filed in the High Court.

The said writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment and order dated August 10, 2012, by directing the respondent authorities to conduct a Review Medical Board in which the petitioners were to be examined. A Review Medical Board was constituted in which the petitioners were re-examined. After such re-examination, an order was passed on December 29, 2012, whereby the petitioners were declared to be medically fit. However, on the grounds of being over-aged, they were not inducted into service.

The petitioners filed the writ petitions and writ appeals which were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. By the division bench order dated October 26, 2014, the impugned action of the respondents was interfered with and consequential directions were given. Subsequently, the petitioners were re-appointed in the year 2015.

In the present writ petition, the petitioners raised the claim that the appointment should be given effect from the original date, i.e., May 23, 2001, with a further claim for payment of arrear salaries.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that due to no fault of the petitioners, they had to face all the harassment and only upon intervention by the High Court, the matter was sorted out. It was further submitted that the initial appointment made on May 23, 2001, having been preceded by the necessary tests including written, physical and medical and the discharge of the petitioners on medical grounds dated October 31, 2001, being interfered with by the High Court, the claim of the petitioners is reasonable, justified and bona fide.

On the other hand, Central Government Counsel submitted that the petitioners were re-appointed only in the year 2015, pursuant to the direction of the High Court.

It was submitted that the division bench of the High Court by order dated October 26, 2014, observed that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to undergo and complete the necessary basic training and on such successful completion, they are to be appointed in the post.

It was accordingly submitted that it is only after completion of the basic training that the appointment process was completed in the year 2015 and therefore, giving benefit to the petitioners of such appointment from the year 2001 would not be justified.

The Court noted that the discharge of the petitioners from their service after their due appointment in the year 2001 on medical grounds followed by subsequent action of the respondents to deny appointment on the ground of overage even after clearance by the Review Medical Board was interfered with by this Court in different round of litigation. The same would amply demonstrate that the petitioners cannot be put at fault for the gap in the service from 2001 to 2015.

Thus, the Court allowed the claim of the petitioners to hold their appointment from the year 2001.

However, the Court further noted that such a claim would only be confined to the notional benefits including fitment and also to treat the petitioners to be in appointment from the year 2001 in the context of their pensionary benefits and the claim for back wages from the year 2001, cannot be considered in terms of the principle of 'no work no pay'.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 25

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: WP(C)/198/2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order