BIDHI CHAND, MOTLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "In exercise of powers under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondent authorities have issued an Order dated 20.12.2015 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service on completion of 30 years of service w.e.f. 01st July, 2016. The petitioner as on July, 2016 will have around more than 12 years service left in his service career. The medical condition of the petitioner as per the latest medical board is S2 (T-24) and P3 (P) for disabilities of Bipolar Affective Disorder and Immune Surveillance respectively with next date of medical board on 01st January, 2017. Under the Assam Rifles Medical Examination (Categorisation and Invalidation) Rules, 1988, personnel of Assam Rifles cannot be made to compulsorily retire if his medical condition is P3 (P) or S2 (T-24). P3 does not mean temporarily unfit and permanently unfit for force. There is nothing under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules or in Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, that personnel can be made to compulsorily retire on "medical grounds", least under P3(P). Rather under the Fundamental Rules or CCS (Pension) Rules, the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner has to be considered before the petitioner can be made to compulsorily retire. Prima facie there has been no consideration of the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner before proceeding arbitrarily under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 to axe the service of the petitioner. Mere placement of the petitioner in the "permanently low category" by the Medical Board cannot be a valid ground for compulsory retiring the petitioner from service by the Service Review Committee "in absence" of any Release Medical Invalidation Board who is otherwise fit to perform sedentary/non-combat duties in the unit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition".

(2.) Heard Ms. P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Both the learned counsels submit that, this instant writ petition is covered by a common judgment and order passed by this court in WP(C) No. 12 of 2015 and others dated 15.03.2016 and further contended that, similar judgment and order can be passed in this instant writ petition.

(3.) For ready reference the contents of the said common judgment and order passed by this court in WP(C) No. 12 of 2015 and others dated 15.03.2016 is reproduced herein below: