Ex LD (Opr) Jawahar Singh vs UOI & Others on 21 November 2025

ORDER

21.11.2025 Respondents :Mr Yashveer Singh, Advocate, Proxy for Mr Manvendra Singh/Himanshu, Advocates : Dr Yuvraj Singh, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

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 The Applicant submits that considered for grant of Disability Pension. 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 Applicat has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and raised preliminary objections on the grounds that the OÃ 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 iable to be dismissed on this count alone. The Respondents have further submitted that the Applicant was OA No 02/2015 LD Jawahar Singh s UOI & Ors 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/ Iive 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 times is subject to the appointment commensurate with the medical category and also the provisions that this can be justified in the public interest and their retention will not When such an exceed the sanctioned strength of the regiment/corps. appointment is not available or when their retention is either not considered necessary in the public interest or it exceeds the sanctioned strength of the regiment/corps, they will be discharged irrespective of the duration of service put in by them. In the impugned order, besides the Applicant, three such similarly placed personnel have been issued with warning order almost ten months in advance for their contemplated discharge so that they can complete In compliance of Army their pension papers and the Release Medical Board. Order, the Applicant was issued with Show Cause Notice for his contemplated discharge from service and afterconsideration of his reply and organizational interest, he was ordered to be discharged from Service after rendering more than 21 years of service for which he has been granted Service Pension. The Applicant was allotted Government Married Accommodation in May 2006 and was in possession for more than eight years and, hence, was ordered to vacate the samne to allot the same to other deserving soldiers' families. Further, the Applicant, by falsifying the fact, ensured that he absented himself from East Camp MFFR in Feb 2014, during the Regiment's outdoor Annual Training Cycle (ATC) by misquoting the medical specialist to the Commanding Officer. Even after his retirement, he was allowed to retain Government Accommodation so that his children could complete their academic session. As regards the competence of 184 MH, the Respondents have submitted that 184 MH is a well equipped hospital and it had also conducted medical board of all similarly placed personnel who were ordered to be discharged on medical grounds. It is also a common knowledge that for a medical board, the individuals report to the nearest military hospital and if so required, the Commandant of that hospital may refer to another hospital. Therefore, the statement of the Applicant that 184 MH is not competent to assess the disability of the Applicant is just to malign the system. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. Before proceeding further in this case, it would be relevant to advert to the relevant extract of Army Rule 13 (as amended), which reads as: "Rule 13. Authorities empowered to authorize discharge. [2-A) VWhere the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff decides that any person or class of persons subject to the Act should be discharged from service, either unconditionally or on the fulfillment of certain specified conditions, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the commanding officer shall also be the competent authority to discharge from service Such perSon or any person belonging to such class in accordance with the said decision.]

In this table "commanding officer" means the officer commanding the corps or department to which the person to be discharged belongs except that in the case of junior Commissioned officers and warrant officers of the Special Medical Section of the Army Medical Corps, the "commánding officer" means the Director of the Medical Services, Army, and in the case of junior commissioned officers and warrant officers of Remounts, Veterinary and Farms, Corps, the "commanding officer"means the Director Remounts, Veterinary and Farms. Categor Junior Commi ssioned officers Grounds of Discharge pension establishment. TABLE Competent Authority to authorize

(i) X XXX RIBUY discharge . ) (a) On completion of the period of Commanding service or tenure specified in the regulations for his rank or appointment, or on reaching the age limit, whichever is earlier, unless retained on the active list for a further specified period with the sanction of the Chief of the Army Staff, or on becoming eligible for release under the regulations

(b) At his own request on transfer to the | Commanding Officer Officer Manner of discharge

(i) Having been found medically unfit for Commanding To be carried out only further service the Officer on recommendation of an Invaliding Medical Board OA No 02/2015 LD Jawahar Singh Vs UOI & Ors

6. The constitutional validity of Army Rule 13(3) Item I (i) (a) read with Army Rule 13 (2A), the Gazette Notification dated 13.05.2010 and the Policy letter dt 30.09.2010, has been upheld by the Full Bench of AFT (PB), New Delhi by way of a Common Order dated 24.09.2014, the operative para of which reads as:

7. "() Hon ble Supreme Court in Rajpal Singh case and Hon ble Delhi High Court in Puttan Lal case held that amy personnel "medically unfit for further service" can be released on recommendation of an Invaliding Medical Board. Said position has not been altered by the newly inserted clause (üXa) at various places in the table appended to Rule 13. Cause (i)(a) is applicable to amy personnel for whom no sheltered appointment is available in the unit or is surplus to the organization and who is also in medical category SHAPE 2/3. Placing the arnmy personnel in medical category SHAPE The 2/3, the procedure has not been changed by newly inserted cause ()a). personnel in medical category SHAPE 2/3 is not required to be examnined by the Invaliding Medical Board.

(i) Predominant reaSon for discharge under Clause (i) (a) is not the medical ground as was in the cases of Rajpal Singh and Sub Puttan Lal. The Clause (i) (a) is a new prOVvision inserted by the impugned amendment with an object to maintain the strength in service within the sanctioned strength as well as to acconmmodate SHAPE 2/3 army personnel in sheltered appointment to the required strength and to discharge the army personnel who cannot be accomnmodated in the sheltered appointment and who is surplus to the organization. () Insertion of above Clause (0a) by impugned amendnment cannot be held to be malafide nor it has created twO classes or give discriminatory treatment tO similarly situated persons and is not in violation to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(v) The clause (i)a) has been added in the rule within egislative competence is admitted legal position as has been admitted by the learned counsel for the parties and we found that so has been done as per the legal position.

(vi) Consequenty, the validity of the Gazette Notification dated 13.05.2010 is upheld and therefore the communication dated. .2010 suffers from no illegality. IRICBOO In the present case, the Applicant has been ordered to be discharged from Service due to non-availability of, Sheltered Appointment. The Release Medical Boards of service personnet are held by various Military Hospitals and if a concerned Specialist is not available in that hospital for some reasons, the concerned person is referred to another/higher hospital to get an opinion of the concerned specialist and after perusal of opinion of concerned specialist, the Release/Invaliding Medical Board is approved by the Competent Authority in terms of extant rules/ regulations and policies. Therefore, the prayer of the Applicant for conduct of Release Medical Board in some other hospital is rejected. Moreover, the Respondents have specifically stated that based on the Applicant, he was allowed to retain Government Accommodation even after his discharge from service, till completion of academic session of his children as per policy. As such there is no substance in the allegation of the Applicant that he was not allowed to retain Govt Married Accommodation despite compulsions.

8. As regards the issue of withdrawal of Sheltered Appointment, it is our considered opinion that sheltered appointment cannot be a claimed as a matter of right. It needs no reiteration that operational efficiency of a Unit has to be cannot be maintained at all times as mandated by the Constitution and compromised at any cost. As per Para 7 and 10 of Policy letter dt 30.09.2010, the Commanding Officer is the Competent Authority for disposal of Permanent Low Medical Category Personnel below Officer Rank. The Commanding Officer is the best judge to decide the issue after taking intO Consideration the relevant factors, including the interests of the individual, maintenance of the desired operational efficiency of the Regiment, public interest, organizational requirement as well as the security of the nation.

9. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the operational and training commitments of the Regiment and employability restrictions of the Applicant, the Sheltered Appointment was withdrawn. The Applicant has already completed 21 years Service in the rank of Naik and was eligible for pensionary benefits. Also, extension of service is conditional at the discretion of the Commanding Officer and as such it cannot be a claimed as a matter of right. Therefore, we find no infirmity, arbitrariness and illegality in Discharge Order dt O06.05.2014. The OA is devoid of merit on all counts and hence, dismissed.

10.

11. No order on costs. Ssy/ (SANIIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed pff. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J) OA No 02/2015 LD Jawalhar Singh Vs UOI & Ors