SATYANAND SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE CHALLENGE : The present civil appeal lays a challenge to the judgment and order dtd. 5/9/2012 ("impugned judgment", hereafter) of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal at New Delhi ("AFT", hereafter), whereby the AFT rejected the appellant's prayer seeking reference of his diagnosis as AIDS inflicted, to a fresh Medical Board.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, insofar as is relevant for the purpose of a decision on this appeal, is noted hereinbelow:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, relied on the 1992 Guidelines to argue that in terms thereof, all personnel with HIV infection were to be retained in service, the only restriction on their employment being, inter alia, that they would not be posted to high altitude areas. Ms. Kaur further contended that there had been an error in diagnosis in the Medical Report itself, since the appellant never suffered from tuberculosis which was taken as a defining illness for AIDS. It was urged that the appellant was merely suffering from double vision, which cleared up by 15/11/2001. However, the doctors misdiagnosed the appellant's double vision for a tuberculosis related symptom of blindness. Consequently, in view of the Notice, the appellant having been found to be both HIV+ve and suffering from tuberculosis, was invalided from service. Ms. Kaul further argued that as per the Army's 2003 Guidelines, the appellant was fit for service since his CD4 cell count remained above 200/mm3 till as late as 2012. This defining indicator for AIDS was argued to have been erroneously disregarded by both, the IMB and the AFT. In support of the same, it was further argued that the appellant was asymptomatic till date, without undergoing any anti-retro viral therapy as would have been prescribed for a person suffering from AIDS; thus, establishing without a doubt, that the appellant never developed AIDS to begin with. Ms. Kaur concluded by arguing that the appellant's case was one of wrongful discharge, based on a wrong diagnosis.