Ex Tc No 66191 Recruit General Duty ... vs The Union Of India And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 4881 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Ex Tc No 66191 Recruit General Duty ... vs The Union Of India And Anr on 21 May, 2025

                                                                     Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010120792024




                                                              undefined

                            THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                    Case No. : WA/431/2024

           EX TC NO 66191 RECRUIT GENERAL DUTY ARBIND KUMAR CHOURASIA
           S/O FAKIRA PRASAD CHOURASIA, VILL. FARDABARI TOLA, P.O. FARDA,
           P.S. NAYARAM NAGAR, DIST- MUNGER, BIHAR, 811201



           VERSUS

           THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
           REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW
           DELHI

           2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES
            SHILLONG-01
            P.O. SHILLONG
            DISTRICT EAST KHASI HILLS
            MEGHALAYA 79300

For petitioner/appellant(s) :       Mr. P. Sarmah, Advocate
For respondent(s)               :   Mr. K.K. Parasar, CGC

- BEFORE -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE 21.05.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 4756/2014. The appellant has approached the writ Court, challenging the Page No.# 2/4

communication dated 02.08.2013, whereby, based on the review medical examination, the discharge of the petitioner from the services of the Assam Rifles, vide order dated 31.10.2004 was upheld and his prayer for disability pension was rejected.

However, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned order by giving reasons in detail.

The brief fact of the case is that the appellant was selected and thereafter enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 26.12.2002 as a Rfn/GD. The appellant was thereafter sent for training. However, during the course of training, he suffered an injury on his leg, identified as sustained stretch fracture and he was treated in various hospitals. But during the process, the appellant missed his training for around 183 days.

The authorities of the Assam Rifles Training Centre and School, Dimapur has assessed the condition of the appellant and discharged him from the training vide order dated 30.04.2004.

Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant has approached the writ Court by way of filing WP(C) No. 7546/2005, which came to be disposed of by this Court on 23.04.2013 following the decision rendered in WP(C) No. 1806/2011 decided on 10.08.2012 and directed the Assam Rifles to constitute a fresh appellate Medical Board to examine the appellant. The fresh Medical Board submitted its report, which suggested that the appellant is only fit for normal duty and not fit for discharging duty as combatant soldier.

Taking into consideration the said report, the Assam Rifles has affirmed the discharge order of the appellant.

It is noticed that before the writ Court, the appellant has prayed that as per Page No.# 3/4

the fresh medical report, if he is not fit to discharge duties of a combatant soldier, the respondents be directed to assign any other duty in the organization.

The learned Single Judge has rejected the said prayer of the petitioner taking note of the provision of the Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation Act, 1995 relating to the persons with disabilities. The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced here under:-

"8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record.

9. At the outset, it is to be noted that in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court in WP(C)/7546/2005, the respondent authorities had constituted a Medical Board for re-examination of the injury as suffered by the petitioner during his training course. On such examination, the Medical Board had found the petitioner to be fit for normal duties only and not fit for military related duties. The said aspect of the matter was communicated to the petitioner vide a communication dated 02.08.2013.

10. The petitioner herein, had enrolled for being a Rfn/GD in the Assam Rifles, which is an armed force of the Union, deployed in the North Eastern Regions and involved in counter insurgency operations, which requires a high degree of physical fitness of the troops. The petitioner admittedly, having been enrolled as a Rfn/GD category, does not have the full physical competence to perform the combatant duties and accordingly, his continuation in such capacity would not be in the interest of the force.

11. The petitioner realizing the above position in the present proceedings, while praying for interference by this Court with the communication dated 02.08.2013, has prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to adjust the petitioner in any Grade-IV posts of defence civilian nature in the Assam Rifles. Such prayer of the petitioner has been so made basing on the fact that the injury as suffered by him had occasioned during the training course, which had led to his discharge from the force.

12. The plea of alternative employment as taken by the petitioner being so made on the ground of the disability as suffered by him during the course of the training, the petitioner prays that the respondent authorities are duty bound to adjust his such services against any Grade-IV posts of defence civilian nature. It is to be noted here that the provisions of the persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is not applicable to the Assam Rifles and accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner in this connection cannot be considered. The discharge of the petitioner from his services during the training course being so based on disabilities suffered by Page No.# 4/4

the petitioner and the same being not arbitrary in nature, this Court would not sit as an appellate authority to examine the findings as arrived at by the authorities in the matter.

13. Further, it is to be noticed that the petitioner was discharged from his services on 30.04.2004; and after a long lapse of around 20 years, this Court, would not like to venture to direct the respondent authorities to provide to the petitioner an avenue of employment against any post.

14. In view of the above conclusions as reached in the matter, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to the directions as sought for in the present writ petition and the same is held to be bereft of any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs."

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going though the materials available on record, we are of the view that the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to persuade us to take a different view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstance of the case.

Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.

                                         JUDGE                         CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant