1 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR OA 1180 of 2011 Basavaraj Paled Petitioner(s) Vs Union of India and others Respondent(s) For the Petitioner (s) : Brig (Retd) Rajinder Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Sharma, Sr. PC. Coram: Justice Vinod Kumar Ahuja, Judicial Member. Air Marshal (Retd) SC Mukul, Administrative Member. ORDER 23.04.2014 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 making a prayer that the discharge order issued by respondent No.3, OIC Records Armoured Corps, C/O 56 APO, dated 20 December 2010 (Annexure A-4) may be quashed and the petitioner be allowed to complete his extended tenure for retention in service for the period from 25 th September, 2011 to 24 th September, 2013. 2. In brief, the petitioner alleges that he was enrolled in the Armored Corps as Clerk (GD) on 25 th September, 1985 and was promoted to the rank of Naib Risaldar on 4 th November, 2008. On 13 th July 2009, he gave willingness certificate for extension of service by two years. He was screened by the Board of Officers for grant of extension w.e.f. 25 th September, 2011 to 24 th September, 2013 and accordingly granted extension vide board proceedings attached as Annexure A-3. He was at that time in medical category SHAPE-1 but in September, 2010 he became low medical category B-2 (Permanent). On 20 th December, 2010, the respondent No.3 issued the release order vide Annexure A-4 as the petitioner became low medical category in terms of Annexure A-1. In the meantime, the AHQ letter was superseded vide letter No. B/33098/AG/PS-2 dated 20 Sep 2010 (Annexure A-5). The petitioner represented for grant of extension but got reply Annexure A-7 and the petitioner was informed that he has to go for discharge in September 2011. Denial of extension in service by two years is contrary to the AHQ letter Annexure A-5 wherein it is stipulated that those willing will
2 be given extension in service subject to meeting the laid down criteria. This letter was made applicable w.e.f. st April, 2011. Vide letter Annexure A-5 the petitioner was eligible for extension as was granted to him by the Board because the letter Annexure A-5 was applicable w.e.f. 1 st April, 2011. Hence the present OA. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that low medical category is no disqualification for grant of extension since the IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 21.09.1998 has been superseded by IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 20.09.2010. 4. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been brought out that the petitioner was discharged from service on 30 th September, 2011 under Army Rule 13(3) Item I (i) (a) on completion of his term of engagement in the rank of Nb Risaldar i.e. 26 years of service. The petitioner was recommended for enhanced service for two years w.e.f. 25 th September, 2011 to 24 th September, 2013 by screening board held on 13 th July, 2009 in accordance with IHQ of MoD (Army) lett3r No. B/33098/AG/PS-2(c) dated 21 September, 1998 and at that time his medical category was SHAPE-I. Thereafter on 3 rd October, 2009, the petitioner was initially admitted in MH Ahmednagar and diagnosed as DIABETES MELLITUS by the medical authorities. As a result, he was placed in LMC SIH1A1P3 (T-24) E1 w.e.f. 10 th Oct. 2009 to 26 th March, 2010. On subsequent re-categorization medical boards, the applicant was placed in Low Medical Category S1H1A1P2(P) E1 w.e.f. 10 th September, 2010 before commencement of enhanced service limit. Based on above policy, discharge order was issued by Armd Corps Records vide letter No. 508102/Gen/CA-1 dated 20 December, 2010. The petitioner being LMC (permanent) his extension in service was not granted w.e.f. 25 th September, 2011 to 24 th September, 2013. 5. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner was not entitled for extension once the individual was found in low medical category (permanent). The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the Principal Bench judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi in L/Nk Gurdeep Singh v. Union of India and others OA No. 96 of 2010 decided
3 on 28.03.2011. and judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 717 of 2011 Risaldar Birendra Singh Kushwah v. Union of India and others decided on 6 th December, 2013 wherein it has been observed that LMC personnel are not eligible for grant of extension. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the term of engagement of the petitioner in the rank of Naib Subedar was 26 years of colour service, which could be extended by two years after screening by a Board. It is also not in dispute that the Screening Board was carried out on 13.07.2009 and the petitioner was found eligible for extension of service by two years w.e.f. 25 Sep 2011 to 24.9.2013. The procedure and criteria for screening of PBOR for enhanced service of the tenure at the relevant time was governed by letter B/33098/AG.PS 2(c) dated 21-09-1998 read with Government of India, Ministry of Defence, letter No. 14(3)/98/D(AG) dated 30 May 1998 (annexed as Annexure R-IV to the reply of the respondents). The Appendix A to this letter lays down the procedure and criteria for screening of the PBOR in the Army. Para 2 clause (b) (i) relates to Medical Classification and runs as under:- Must continue to remain in medical category AYE. Those who are temporary low medical category at the time of screening board will continue to be in service. If this temporary low medical category is made into permanent low medical category by subsequent Re-categorisation Medical Board before commencement of the enhanced service limit, the individual will be disposed off in accordance with the existing rules on the subject. 8. In the case at hand, when the Screening Board was carried out on 13.07.2009, the petitioner was in Medical Category SHAPE-1 and his extension of two years had to start w.e.f. 25.09.2011 to 24.09.2013. The petitioner was downgraded to Medical Category C (T) on 10.10.2009 for Diabetes Mellitus and subsequently placed in Medical Category CEE (P) w.e.f. 10.09.2010. 9. A perusal of the Medical Classification given in Appendix- A above (of the Policy of 1998) clearly indicates that the individuals were required to remain in medical category AYE and even the individuals, who were in
4 temporary low medical category at the time of screening, were allowed to continue in service, but it was specifically provided that if this temporary low medical category is made into permanent low medical category by subsequent re-categorisation Medical Board before commencement of the enhanced service limit, the individual were to be disposed of in accordance with the existing rules on the subject. 10. Since in the present case after the Screening Board held on 13.07.2009, in which the petitioner being in Medical Category AYE was found eligible for extension of two years w.e.f. 25.09.2011 to 24.09.2013, the petitioner was down-graded to Low Medical Category P-2 (Permanent) w.e.f. 10.09.2010 he was not eligible for extension of period which had to commence w.e.f. 25.09.2011. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the procedure & criteria for screening of PBOR has been revised by IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No. B/33098/AG/PS-2 (c) dated 20-09-2010 & has been made applicable w.e.f. 01-04-2011. Under the revised policy, personnel placed in Medical Category BEE (including both temporary and permanent LMC) are also eligible for extension in service [Appendix A Para 2 (b) (ii)]. His further contention is that since the petitioner was going to be discharged from service w.e.f. 24.09.2013 and the revised policy having been made applicable from 01-04-2011, he is entitled to the benefit of this policy as he is in Medical Category BEE (Permanent). He, by referring to IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No. B/10201/Vol.II/MP-3 (PBOR) dated 30-09-2010 contended that though he is in LMC P3, he may be given sheltered appointment for 2 years as provided in para 5 of this letter. 12. The respondents have submitted that the revised policy dated 20-09- 2010 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the same has been made applicable w.e.f. 01-04-2011. Moreover, as per para 3 of the Appendix- A of the said letter dated 20-09-2010 the Method of Screening has been laid down & runs as under:- Method of Screening:- Screening of the affected PBOR for the grant of extension should be carried out 24 months prior to their reaching the current laid down service limits. It should be conducted by the same boards which are constituted and assembled for the purpose of
5 deciding promotion for the same rank as per current practice in various Arms and Service. Accordingly unit/regiment /corps promotion boards which are constituted and assembled for the purpose of deciding promotions, should also undertake the following additional tasks, whenever, required:- (a) Screen affected PBOR for the grant of extension. (b) Consider PBOR for continued retention during the extended tenure in case there is drop in any criteria as mentioned at Appx. B to this letter. (c) Consider Ris/Sub Major who do not complete 34 years pensionable service or 4 yrs tenure by the time they reach 52 yrs of age, for screening for extension in service upto the age of 54 yrs or 34 of pensionable service or 4 yrs of tenure whichever is earlier. Note: In exception to the above, a PBOR could not be screened for extn of service under the existing policy as per laid down screening schedule given at Para 4 below due to LMC, Court cases or any other circumstances beyond his control, will be screened by the Screening Board before retirement. 13. Again a clarification has been issued vide IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No. 33098/AG/PS-2(c) dated 28-01-2011 reads as under:- 1. Refer this HQ letter No.B/33098/AG/PS-2(c) dated Sep 2010 2. Every JCO/OR is entitled to screening for extn of 2 years Service in present rank as pr policy laid down vide letter No. B/33098/AG/PS-2(c) dt 21 Sep 1998 as revised vide letter No.B/33098/AG/PS-2(c)dt 20Sep effective from 01 Apr 2011. 3. It is amply clear from the policy letter quoted above that thenew policy to be effective is from 01 Apr 2011 to screen individuals for extension wef 01 Apr 2013. It is also amply clear that there is no provision for second screening. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that since the revised policy is applicable to those PBOR who are eligible for extension w.e.f. 01-04-2013, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner, whose case is covered by the policy of the year 1998. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the policy dated 20-09-2010. When the screening of the petitioner was conducted by the Screening Board on 13.07.2009 the policy of the year 1998 was applicable and according to that policy only those PBORs were entitled for extension, who were either in the Medical Category AYE or were temporary Low Medical Category. There was also a provision in the Policy of the year 1998 that if the temporary Low Medical Category is made into permanent Low Medical Category before the commencement of the enhanced service
6 limit, then the individual will be discharged under the existing rules on the subject. Since after the Screening Board held on 13.07.2009 in which the petitioner was found in the Medical Category AYE, he was reduced to permanent Low Medical Category in the Review Medical Board w.e.f. 10.09.2010, the petitioner was not entitled for the enhanced services which were to start w.e.f. 25.09.2011 to 24.09.2013. 16. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the petitioner has no case and his petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The costs shall be borne by the parties. (Justice Vinod Kumar Ahuja) 23.04.2014 raghav (Air Marshal (Retd) SC Mukul) Whether the judgment for reference is to be put on internet? Yes / No.