Major K. Ramesh, Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Ms. Neelam v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Major K. Ramesh, Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Ms. Neelam Rathore, Col. S.R. Kalkal, Mr. Rajeev Anand, Mr. C.M. Khanna, Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Col. C.K. Sharma, Col. A.S. Chauhan, Mr. Mohan Kumar, Mr. N.L. dareja, Mr. Hitender Sakkarwal, Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Mr. EJ. Vaighese, Mr. Kuljiwan Goydl, Mr. Alok Kishor, Mr. Kundan (umar, Mr. Anil Kumar pandey, Mr. Rajeev Anand, Mr. B.p. . Shukla, Mr. S.M. Dalal, Mr. D.S. Kauntae, Mr.Sournyajit . Pani, Dr.Alok K.Sharma, Mr.R.D.Tybgi, Captain K.M.Saxena, Ms. Rekha palli with Ms. punam Singh, Mr. S.L. Kumar with Mr. B.K, Ahluwalia, Col.S.S.Chhawal, Mr, A,K. Bakshi with Mr. Romesh Gautam, Ms.Bandana Shukla, Mr.R.K.Sharma, Mr.Aagney Sail' & Mr.Abhik Kumar, Mr.M.5.Sasan, Dr.R.S.Sasan, Mr.A.K.Trivedi, MsJagrati Singh for Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Mr.S.K.Kumar, Mr,B.V.K.Ahluwalia and Ms.Rita Hingmang, Advocates for the Petitioners. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..,RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Mr. Manoj Ohri, Mr. Hemant Gupta, Mr. Puneet. Khurana, Ms.Monica darg, Mr.Shakir Hasan, Mr.Amiet Andley, Mr. Saroj' Bidawlt, Col. R. Balasubiamaniam, Mr. Aakash pratap, Ms. Barkha Babbar, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Mr. pankaj Batra, Mr, Anil Gautam, Mr. M.M, Beg, Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Ms.Shilpa Singh, Mr.Yogesh Varma, Mr.prakash Kumar, WP (C) No.59 6 of 2OO7 ond other connected motters Page 2 of I \b , MlJaswinder_Singh, Ms...y:n,Ig Garg, Mr. Caurau Liberhan, Mr.Rohii Malik, Mr.Jatin Onawani' Mr. M.Y. l,,.han, Mr. Amiet Andlay, Mr. S.M. 2ulfiqar Alam, lvls, Jyoti Singh, Mr. Ankur Chhiffi, Mr.pankaj Batra, Mr. saleem Ahmed with Mr. Habidui ' Rahman, yr:.S.anjay Katyal with Mr. ninje"t KumarJha, Mr. Vikas Sethi with Ms. Nlaninder Acharya, Mr. Rajan Sabharwal with Ms. Seema Bh'adauriya, Mr, Pushkar Sood with Mr. Varun Kathuria, ' Mr. Sewa Ram with Mr. R.K. Bachchan, Mr. Dalip Mehra with Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Mr. Jai Bansal and Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocates, proxy for Ms. Madhu Sharan, Mr. Sanjay katyal, Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A,S. Singh Advocates .aroqg with.coroner G.s.Aur and_-rualor s.s. lvtr.puneet Khurana, -and ' ondents. Advocates for the Respondents. CORAM: HON:BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whetlrer the Reporters oi local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? sAtuAY KISHAN r..AUL, l. (ORAL)

The common question r,vhich arises for consideration in this batclr of petitions is as to wlreilrer an army personnel could have been discharged from service without holding the lnvaliding Medical Board ('lMB' for short). A Division Bench of this court had held against the respondents against which the respondents preferred a special Leave petition. since the Hon'ble supreme court was seized of the matter, it issued directions that this court should stay its hand till the - authoritative pronouncement of the supreme court is available on this aspect. we may also note that interim orders were granied by this Court, but the Supreme Court vacated the interim orders and in view thereof a general WP (C) No.5945 of 2OO7 ond other cannected motters Fage i ol 8 ,\\ interim order was passed by this Court on 14.05.200g keeping in mind the orders passed b), the Supreme Court whereby the benefit of stay was restricted to the service personnel continuing in the accommodation provided by the Army. '' 2' The supreme court has delivered a judgment in Civil Appeal No.65B7l2008 in union of rndia & ors v, Rajpar Sinqh on 07.11.2008. The question which has been decided has been succinctly set out in para 2 of the order itself as to whether the holding of an IMB is a condition precedent for discharge of a juniclr Commissioner Of.ficer (JCO,) on' account .of medical category.

we may add here that this principle would actually apply not .only to the JCos alone, but also to all the personnel Below Officers Rank ('pBORs,.for short)., The conclusion of the Supreme court is that the High court was correct in holding that the PBoRs could not be clischarged from service without holding an lMB. .

The resuit of tlre aforesaid judgment is that all the present petitions are liable to be allowed.

we have heard the counser for the parties for purposes of concluding as to what directions are required to be passed in the present petitions. The following directions are accordingly issued: i) The order passed by the chief of Army staff dated 12,04,2007 directing discharge of all the personnel in Low Medical Category without holcling the IMB is quashed. ii) The petitioners.who stand discharged as a consequence of the aforesaid order are entiiled to be reinstated with all lvP (C) No.5946 ol 200i ond otlter connected motters lrnf,a A I ^f Y . consequential'benefits including continuity of service, pay and allowances and seniority as per the rules,......-...-----. .-. iii) . The petitioners would report to their respective Regimental centre from where they have been discharged . within a period of 30 days from today for joining\ The pay and allowances and other ncfitits to such of the petitioners who have not been paid the pension and retiral benefits including by AGIF arising from the discharge order will be remitted within a maximum period .of three months from tod'ay. ' Naturally, this would .b: applicable only to such of the petitioners who join within the aforesaid time. . iv) There are" certain petitioners who have been paid pension, . benefits.and. amount by AGtF and if they seek to re-join , ... -."-.. . .. ... , .; . ... .r.,." .1... :,.,. ,::.: 1;..:j,,a,rial:-i:. :tn"*i'i#a' .retiral. naturally they have to refund the amount.

we would have disposed of all these writ petitions with the aforesaid directions alone, but we are conscious of the fact that there are a large n.umber of personner who have been discharged under the policy which has been herd to be illegal by the supreme court, This has already started resulting in a spate of petitions befbre this Court. such policy decision was taken on 12.04. zoot and is in proximity of time. In order to give option to. such other persons who may not have ' ' approached the court till now arising as a conseqlience of the judgment of the Supreme Court and to avoid such unnec.essary. spate. of litigation before this court, it has become necessary to issue certain further general directions even.in respect of the pBoRs. who have not approached any court till date. This is not onry in the interest of such persons but also' in the interest of the rebpondents and to avoid unnecessary huge litigation.