RISALDAR RAM KARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought the quashing of discharge order dated 17th August, 2005 made operative from 31st January, 2006 and the order dated 21st September, 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench in T.A No.229/2009 titled as ,,Risaldar Ram Karan Singh v. Union of India & Ors. dismissing the petition of the petitioner on the ground of delay since the petitioner was discharged from the service on 31st January 2006 while he has filed the petition in April, 2009.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of discharge effective from 31st January, 2006 on the ground that it is contrary to the Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954 and Para 424 (C) of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 1983. THE petitioner has sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits and direction that the petitioner be considered for promotion to the rank of Risaldar Major as on 1st March, 2009 on account of being the senior most Risaldar in the Unit 63 Cavalry.

(3.) THE respondents had refuted the pleas of the petitioner by contending that though the petitioner was placed in the Low Medical Category at various stages, he was promoted on the recommendations of the Commanding Officer in terms of the Army Order 46/80 in "public interest" as the Commanding Officer was able to provide the petitioner with sheltered appointment which commensurated with his medical category. It was further contended that the retention of permanent Low Medical Category Personnel is subject to the availability of suitable alternative appointments that commensurate with the medical category, and that the same has to be justified in public interest and also that the retention should not exceed the sanctioned strength of regiments/Corps. THE claim of the petitioner for disability pension was turned down since the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. THE ratio of Puttan Lal (supra) was stated to be not applicable to the case of the petitioner in terms of the conditions laid down by para 7(iv) of the judgment which reads as under: