tion C No 9960 61 of 1985
163 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Gobind Mukhoty and SK Verma for the Petitioners
Dr Shankar Ghosh and Prabir Choudhary for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
This Writ Petition was filed challenging the action taken by the respondent the State Government of Assam under the Asom Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti Taking over management and Control Act 1984 Assam Act No XXIII of 1984 which was an Act enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Assam and received the assent by the Governor of Assam and published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated 151284
It also challenged the orders contained in Notifi cation Nos
EPG 578425A EPG 578430 A and EPG 5784 51 A dated 11084 101184 and 19385 respectively issued by the Education Personal Department of the Government of Assam
According to the petitioner in 1929 Lahore Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi adopted a resolution for the spread of Hindi as the common language for the whole of India with a view to promote national integrity and in pursuance of this resolution institutions for the spread and prachar of Hindi in the non Hindi areas were established
First of this kind was established in Madras City in the name of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Samiti then in Wardha for the development and spread of Hindi
in the rest of India
Late Baba Raghab Das a devoted disciple of Gandhiji undertook the task of spreading Hindi in the North Eastern part of India and in 1934 eminent local leaders of this region Late Tarun Ram Phukan Late Nabin Chandra Bardaloi Late Gopinath Bardaloi Late Krishna Nath Sarma and others joined Baba Raghab Das and the first institution named Asom Hindi Prachar Samiti was formed on 31138 at Gauhati with late Gopinath Bardaloi the first Chief Minister of Assam under the 1935 Act as its President
In 1948 Asom Hindi Prachar Samiti was renamed as Assam Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti with its head Office at Gauhati
It is this Assam Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti the petitioner No 1 which is a registered society under the with its registered office at Hedayatpur Gauhati 3 District Kamrup
The registration No of the Samiti which is 18th of 1951 and according to the petitioner this Society has a membership of about 164 22000 persons scattered all over the States and Union Territories of North Eastern part of India
The Samiti has district committees under its control
The Samiti also has two affiliated bodies namely Manipur Hindi Prachar Sabha Imphal and the Asom Rashtrabhasha Sewak Sangh
This Samiti has a sole constitution known as Bidhan which is also regis tered with the Registrar of Societies Assam at Gauhati
This Samiti is a literary body and under Section 4 of the Bidban the objects of the Samiti have been stated thus a To propogate and promote Hindi as a na tional language in Assam Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Manipur Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh as provided in Article 351 of the Constitution of India
b to promote efficient educated qualified workers of good character to hold out the Indian ideal before the future generations c to serve the State languages and litera tures together with the promotion of Hindi
d to serve the tribal language and culture through the medium of Hindi language and to create kindness with the tribal brethren
e to undertake a programme of literacy amongst the illiterate
This Samiti according to the petitioners discharge its functions including the holding of examinations in Hindi in the State of Assam Meghalaya and the Union Territory as they were then of Mizoram and also production and publica tion of prescribed text books in Hindi for Primary Schools High School Higher Secondary schools and the Colleges upto the degree standard
The Samiti holds different examinations twice in a year in which about 60000 candidates at the time of the filing of this petition on an average used to appear
The successful candidates are issued certificates which are recognised by the Government of India and the Government of Assam and various All India Organisation
The Samiti also imparts training and teaching in Hindi through a large number of Vidyalayas numbering about 400 and through Prama nita Pracharaks ie authorised propagators numbering about 5000 scattered all over in the North Eastern part of India
It is also alleged that the Samiti from the very inception had acquired assets 165 and properties and the assets and properties at the time of the filing of the petition were stated to be 1
Buildings Rs706400000 2
Printing Press with Machines Rs150000000 and accessories 3
Furniture Fixture Rs 30000000 4
Two portraits Rs 1000000 5
Vehicle Rs 3500000 6
Typewriting Schools including Rs 6000000 machines and furnitures 7
Iron Safe Rs 3000000 8
Compound fixing leasedias Rs 3000000 9
Bank Deposits Rs 34300000 10
Security Deposit with Ashok Rs 3000000 Paper Mill Ltd 11
Shares of Assam Coop apex Rs 500000 Bank Ltd 12
Stock of printing papers Rs 5000000 and stationaries 13
Stock of text books Rs220000000 14
articles including Rs500000000 utensils 15
Building Materials Rs250000000 16
Central Library Rs100000000 17
Value of the old books Rs 30000000 TOTAL Rs 1244200000 According to the Bidhan of the Samiti the management and administration of the Samiti is run by elected bodies namely Byabasthapika Sabha meaning the General Council and the Karyapalika meaning the Executive Committee the term of each body is 5 years from the date of holding of their first meeting
Accordingly the term of 166 the Byabasthapika Sabha was to expire on 9887 five years from the date of holding the first meeting which was held on 10882 and the term of Karyapalika was to expire on 18887 five years from the date of the first meeting which was 19882
That under Section 10 of the Bidhan the Karyapalika of the Samiti consisted of 17 members with the following of fice bearers i Adhyakasha President ii Karyadhakshya Working President iii Upadhakshya Vice President iv Mantri General Secretary v Koshadhyaksha Treasurer vi Six members elected by the Byabasthapika Sabha vii The Education Secretary to the Government of Assam or a member nominated by him
viii Five members of the Byabasthapika Sabha nominated by the Adhyaksha and ix Pradhan Sachib Chief Secretary and other departmental secretaries of the Samiti
According to the petitioner the first meeting of this last Byabasthapika Sabha was held on 10882 wherein peti tioner No 2 was elected unanimously as its Mantri General Secretary besides other office bearers
According to the Bidhan of the Samiti as it stood in 1982 the Chief Minister of Assam was the Ex Officio Adhyaksha of the Samiti but as at the time of holding of the first meeting the State of Assam was under President s rule consequently the  office of Adhyaksha of the Samiti remained vacant as then there was no Chief Minister of Assam
Petitioner No 2 and other office bearers of the Karyapalika of the Samiti held the first meeting of the Karyapalika on 19882 and the Karyapa lika was running the day to day administration and was managing the affairs of the Samiti according to the Peti tioner very efficiently and diligently
It is alleged that in early part of 1983 President s rule was lifted from Assam and a Ministry headed by Shri Hiteswar Saikia was installed in power in Assam
But in the meantime the Samiti in its meeting of the Byabasthapika Sabha held on 17783 passed a resolution for 167 amendment of the provisions of the Bidhan in the following manner That the words contained in Section 16 at page 21 of the Bidhan to the effect that the Chief Minister of Assam shall be the Ex offi cio Adhyaksha of the Samiti be deleted
All other such references contained in the Bidhan be also accordingly amended
This amendment shall come into force from today the 17783
 That the said resolution was adopted in full compliance of Section 30 of the Bidhan and all members present in the meeting except one supported the resolution
This resolution amending Section 16 of the Bidhan was passed considering the difficulties that arose in the working of the Samiti by keeping Chief Minister as the Adhyaksha of the Samiti
According to the petitioner this amendment was sought neces sary to keep the Samiti away from politics
According to the petitioner this amendment was introduced in accordance with Section 30 of the Constitution Bidban of the Samiti which provided The Constitution of the Samiti may be amended as follows Ka The proposal for amendment must reach the head office within the month of January every year
Kha The amendment proposals will be sent for information to all the members of the Byabas thapika Sabha from the Office
Ga The amendment will be carried out by the 23rd members present According to the petitioner the procedure stated in this Section of the Constitution was followed and as only one person opposed the Constitution amendment was passed
It is further alleged by the petitioner that as this amendment was passed on 17783 from this date the Chief Minister ceased to be the Ex officio President and since then according to the petitioner he had nothing to do with the Samiti
The post of Ex officio President was abolished
According to the petitioner that Respondent No 4 after passing of this amendment of the Bidhan on political consid eration passed an order dated 7784 contained in the noti fication No CMS 20279319 168 dated 7784 whereby respondent No 4 purportedly to act as the Ex Officio Adhyaksha of the Samiti declared as a state of emergency in the Samiti in exercise of his powers con ferred under section 16 Gha of the Bidban and dissolved the existing Karyapalika of the Samiti with immediate effect and also constituted an ad hoc body with himself as Chairman and five others as members to manage the affairs of the Samiti
The petitioner has also filed a copy of this order
It is alleged by the petitioner that under this order peti tioners Nos 1 and 2 were asked to hand over the charges of the management of the Samiti to the Ad hoc Committee
There upon the petitioner filed a suit being a Title Suit No 110 of 1984 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No 1 Gauhati for a declaration that the order dated 7784 passed by Respondent No 4 declaring a state of emergency and by which he dissolved the existing Karyapalika of the Samiti and constituted an Ad hoc Committee as void illegal and without jurisdiction and unenforceable against the petition er Society
As on the day on which he passed the Order he was no longer the Adhyaksha as the Constitution has been amended before that day
Petitioner also prayed for perma nent injunction restraining the respondent No 4 and other members of the Ad hoc committee their agents and servants from giving effect to the order
The petitioners also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the issuance of a temporary injunction
It is alleged that the Assistant District Judge No 1 Gauhati by his order dated 19784 issued a notice to the defendants of that suit to show cause as to why a temporary injunction as prayed for by the petitioners should not be granted and fixed 13884 as the date for showing cause
The defendants filed their objection on 21884 and the case was fixed on 251084 for consideration of the question of issuing a temporary injunction
When the matter was pending in the Court for considera tion of the question of temporary injunction the Governor of Assam purported to act under Clause 1 of Article 230 of the Constitution of India promulgated an Ordinance called the Asom Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti taking over of Management and Control Ordinance 1984 and Section 1 sub clause ii of this Ordinance provided that the Ordinance shall extend to all areas over which the Asom Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti had its jurisdiction immediately before the commence ment of the Ordinance by a Notification No EPG 578416 issued under the signatures of Respondent No 3 the Governor of Assam fixed Ist of October 1984 as the appointed day on which the aforesaid Ordinance 169 came into force and Section 3 of the said Ordinance provided that the Government may constitute a Board for the purposes of taking over the management and control of the Samiti consisting of not more than 9 members
According to the petitioners this Ordinance was issued at the instance of the Chief Minister which was unnecessary unwarranted and un called for and was against the law laid down by the Consti tution Bench of this Court
Notification was issued on 7784 Preamble of which reads as under Whereas the Chief Minister of Assam in his capacity as Ex officio Adhyakasha of the Asom RBP Samiti is satisfied that deterioration of the financial condition of the Samiti has resulted in financial deadlock and the group rivalry among the members confrontation between the management and the employees culminating in institution of law suits hunger strikes by employees and chaos in administration matters have resulted in admin istration deadlock
 The petitioners contended that what is stated in the Pream ble is incorrect and misconceived
The financial condition of the Samiti had never deteriorated nor there were any adverse remark by any auditor in the regular auditing of the accounts of the Samiti
It is alleged that even other facts leading to the taking over are wholly incorrect and mala cious
Thereafter in 1984 Assam Legislative Assembly passed an Act ie Act No XXIII of 1984 replacing the Ordinance and this Act received the assent of the Governor of Assam on 12884 and was published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 151284
Under Section 3 of this Act the Assam Rashtrabha sha Prachar Samiti taking over of Management and Control Act 1984 the number of members constituting the Board was raised to 13
By the provisions of this Act virtually the Samiti which was a public body constituted by its members having elected Byabasthapika Sabha and Karyapalika were substituted by Board appointed by the Government and all the functions properties and affairs of the Samiti were taken over by this Board and it is this action taken under the Ordinance and the Act and ultimately the Act which is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition
As this infringes the fundamental rights of the members who consti tute the Samiti their rights under Article 191c and by this process of taking over the Samiti has been deprived of its assets and properties and even as alleged by the peti tioners Government has gone to the 170 extent of changing the name of the institution also
It is alleged that after the passing of this Act the notification under section 3 was issued which was EPG 573475 dated 11084 by which the Rashtrabhasha Prachar Board was consti tuted with respondents 11 12 and 13 as members and by this order all persons except respondent No 12 who was not even the member of the Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti were nominat ed
The petitioners also alleged that in fact all this happened because when the then Chief Minister of Assam learnt about the amendment of the Constitution carried out by Byabasthapika Sabha learnt that under the unamended Bidhan was the Ex officio Adhyaksha has been dropped by the amendment of the Constitution that with mala fide intention he started taking action in a manner in which he could retain the control of the institution
Firsthe invoked the Constitution itself by superseding the body by invoking emergency provisions but when that was challenged by a suit an ordinance was brought taking over the Samiti as a whole specially replacing the Byabasthapika Sabha and the Karyapa lika and later the ordinance was replaced by the Act and it was contended that this all was the mala fide action of the then Chief Minister of Assam and it is further contended that unfortunately even after the new elections and a new Government comes in power in Assam the Act which as its title discloses was a temporary measure was continued at perpetuity and the Samiti is being run by nominated members and the rights of the members of the Samiti under Article 19 has not only been restricted but has been taken away
It was also contended that the history of the Samiti and the manner in which it was formed and the persons who initially consti tuted the Samiti is of significance because its history and historical background touches the ideological and sentimen tal aspirations of the people of Assam and the infringement of this right to form an association under Article 191c is challenged as mala fide action motivated with selfish political motivation
It is also contended that by the operation of this Act those who have nothing to do with the Samiti or its ideals and who were not even the members of the Samiti have been nominated as the members of the Board and they are supposed to run the affairs of the Samiti whereas those who have contributed their heart and soul for the ideals of the Samiti and who have put in long years of hard labour to build up are deprived of their right to manage the affairs of the Samiti
It is also contended that even the assets and the properties of the Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti is being mismanaged by nominated board as it has no moral attachment to the ideals nor aptitude with the work of the Samiti and the assets are being neutralized
171 It was also contended that the heading of the Act as it disclosed An Act to provide for temporary transfer of the management and control of the affairs of ARBPS from the Byabasthapika Sabha Karyapalika and other holders of office of the Assam Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti to a Board
This heading of the Act according to the learned counsel is just an eye wash as this heading shows that a temporary arrangement was made because the management of the Samiti was not in proper hands and the temporary arrangement was only to improve the functioning of the society and ultimate ly it has to be handed over back to the elected body consti tuted under the Bidhan constitution of the society regis tered under the  but in fact after the passing of this Act in 1984 till today the re spondent State had no point of time even thought of restor ing the body to the normal functioning after holding elec tion in accordance with the constitution of the Society
In fact even during the hearing of this Writ Petition the counsel appearing for the State was asked to intimate the Court if even now the State knowing that this was a tempo rary measure is intending to restore the society back with elected functionaries under the constitution
It was indi cated that the Government of Assam has no intentions even now to end this temporary arrangement of the Samiti
It is plain that although the Act talks of a temporary measure but it is only an eye wash and by this process the State Govern ment intends to deprive the members of the society their rights under Article 191c for all times to come
In the Act there is no provision providing for restoration of the elected bodies which shows that the use of phrase tempo rary  was just an eye wash
Learned counsel appearing for the State attempted to justify the action however denying that it was not because the constitution was amended and therefore the Chief Minis ter was annoyed but attempted to suggest that there was some mismanagement of the society but in any event there was no logic which could be suggested for such a permanent taking over of the society registered discharging functions which could not be said to be not ideal and which had started working on some ideals which could not be said not for public good 
It is clear that now as the Act of 1984 and a Board nominated or appointed under Section 3 of the Act is con trolling the affairs of the Society it is not necessary to go into the orders passed by the Chief Minister invoking the emergency powers although the facts which were alleged clearly go to show that except that constitution was amended and the Chief Minister was dropped from the place which he used to enjoy before the amendment of the Bidhan Constitu tion
There was 172 nothing serious and the Chief Minister who in fact had ceased to be an Adhyaksha because of the constitutional amendment took that action only to stick to the position and the subsequent acts even if mala fide action is not clearly established as was alleged we have no hesitation in ob serving that there appears to be no justification as it is clear that if the Act was enacted to meet a temporary con tingency for taking over of the management temporarily it could have provided for the restoration of the elected body in due course
It is significant that this Act is silent and although as quoted above it talks of being temporary act it continues and even as stated above there appears to be no intention of the State Government to restore the body back to the elected bodies under the constitution of the society itself
In these circumstances therefore there appears to be no justification for all these actions starting from invok ing the emergency provisions till enacting the present Act ie Asom Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti taking over of the Management and Control Act 1984
Except the allegations of mala fide which are not admit ted rest of the facts are not in dispute
The only sugges tion made in the counter is that there was mismanagement delay in examinations and results and it was because of that that management only under this Act was taken over
But neither in the counter nor during the course of arguments anything could be said on behalf of the State for a perma nent justification of taking over of the management of the Samiti depriving its members the right under Article 191c of the Constitution of India
In the counter it was contended that the Legislature of the State was competent under Entry 25 of the List Ill concurrent list Schedule 7 of the Constitution to enact this law
Entry 25 List III reads 25
Education including technical education medical education and universities subject to the provisions of Entries 63 64 65 and 66 of List I vocational and technical training of labour The mere perusal of Entry 25 will reveal as to how difficult it will be to stretch Entry 25 to mean the authority to deprive an association of its right under Article 191c of the Constitution of India
It would have been different situation if the state felt that it wanted to do the same thing what this Samiti was doing and further the acts of education and for that purpose if it had taken steps to start similar functions at the 173 state level probably the things would have been different
But here we are simply concerned with the taking over of the management of a registered society having large membership and assets and properties following programme and policies living to the ideals which could not be in any way chal lenged or adversely commented
Article 191c of the Constitution provides 19
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc 1 All citizens shall have the right a xx xx xx b xx xx xx c to form associations or unions d xx xx xx e xx xx xx f xx xx xx g xx xx xx The Constitution Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider exactly a similar situation when a Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was taken over first by a State law and later by an Act of Parliament and this Court considering the question in Damyanti Naranga vs The Union of India and Others   observed Further under Section 72 of the Act the Governing Body of the new Sammelan is to consist of such number of persons not exceed ing 55 as the Central Government may from time to time determine and out of these a number not exceeding 7 are to be nominated by the Central Government from among education ists of repute and eminent Hindi scholars
These 7 nominees are to be chosen by the Central Government
 In the present case the Government has taken the power under Section 3 to appoint a Board and the Government can appoint any one not connected with the Society at all to be in the Board
In the Act which was being examined by the Constitution Bench there were some restrictions on the nominations of persons although the persons were to be nominated by the Central Government but in the present Act it is left to the discretion of the Government to appoint the whole of the Board which will take place of not only the Managing Committee ie the Karyapalika but also the place of Byabasthapika Sabha which normally used to be an elected body
In this view the observation of 174 the Constitution Bench in Damyanti Naranga s case goes a long way
It is observed in this judgment This is clear interference with the right to form an association which had been exercised by the members of the Society by informing the Society with its Constitution under which they were members and future members could only come in as a result of their choice by being elected by their working Committee
 It is therefore clear that so far as the present case is concerned it is not only that the new members are intro duced not only that the complete control is left to the Board to be nominated by the Government about the persons no norms have been laid down the person so nominated could be anyone and no control is kept to those who formed the Society those who had a right to form an association will be kept away and the Society shall be run by group of per sons nominated by the Government in accordance with Section 3
It is therefore clear that what was done in the Sammelan Acts which were under examination in the Constitution Bench judgment referred to above much more has been done in this case
In this case virtually the right of association has been taken away and not only that it is a sort of depriva tion for all times as it is not even provided that this Board may be an interim Board and thereafter a proper Board will be elected but here this Board will continue to control and manage the affairs of the Society
In the Constitution Bench case their Lordships considered the scope of Article 191c in the context of what was contemplated in that Act and observed The right to form an association in our opinion necessarily implies that the persons forming the Association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the Association
Any law by which members are introduced in the voluntary Association without any option being given to the members to keep them out or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it will be a law violating the right to form an association
If we were to accept the submission that the right guaranteed by article 191c is confined to the initial stage of forming an Association and does not protect the right to continue the Association with the membership either chosen by the founders or regulated by rules made by the Association 175 itself the right would be meaningless be cause as soon as an Association is formed a law may be passed interfering with its compo sition so that the Association formed may not be able to function at all
The right can be effective only if it is held to include within it the right to continue the Association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by the persons forming the association
 It is therefore clear that even on the basis of the pro nouncement of the Constitution Bench the Act and the noti fication issued under this Act taking over the management of the Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti could not be accepted to be in accordance with the Constitution
Apart from this it is also clear that although when the Act talks of a temporary measure in fact the Act does not provide for as to how when the temporary measures comes to an end the elected Byabasthapika Sabha and Karyapalika would be restored
It is not only that but it is also apparent that since 1984 when this Act was passed and a notification appointing a Board was issued the Government has not chosen to take any steps to restore the Society back to its elected authorities and office bearers inspite of the fact that we indicated and asked the counsel appearing for the State to let us know even if now the State is intending to restore it back to the Society but unfortunately it appears that with out considering the question and its constitutional aspects the reply came that the State has no desire to restore the Samiti and therefore we are left with no option but to decide and decide upholding the Constitution and the right of association conferred under Article 191c of the Constitution
We therefore allow these writ petitions set aside the notification issued under the Act enacted by the Assam Legislature holding that the Act itself is ultra vires of the Constitution
We therefore also quash the notifica tion issued under Section 3 of the Act as ultra vires by which a Board was nominated to replace the Karyapalika and Byabasthapika Sabha
At the time when this Board was constituted under Sec tion 3 the Karyapalika and Byabasthapika Sabha duly elected were functioning and they had sufficient time to go on and in this view of the matter we further direct that the Karya palika and Byabasthapika Sabha which were in existence in 1984 when initially the action under the emergency provi sions was taken followed by the notification under the Ordinance and the Act shall be restored back and they shall take over the management of the Samiti from the Board imme diately but it is made clear that the Karyapalika and Bya basthapika Sabha which were 176 functioning in 1984 and which we are restoring will within six months from the date of this Order will hold proper elections in accordance with the Constitution to elect a Byabasthapika and Karyapalika
This is necessary because the period of the Karyapalika and Byabasthapika Sabha which was functioning in 1984 has come to an end although from 1984 till today they were not allowed to function
It is further directed that the authorities officers appointed by the Board or the State Government shall restore back all assets and properties of the Samiti to the Karyapalika which will be restored immediately after the passing of this Order
The petitioners shall also be entitled to costs of this peti tion
Costs quantified at Rs 10000
RNJ Petition allowed


Summary:
The appellant has filed a contempt petition against the Respondents alleging that the directions dated 2041988 of this Court have not been complied with
The Respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the appellant for promotion on the basis that his medical category continues to be S I from 1977 and that the medical category would be taken into account if the rules for promo tion so require otherwise not
It was also directed that the consideration of promotion would be completed within four weeks See 19883 SCR 646
On behalf of the respondents it was stated that the promotional entitlements of the petitioner had been fina lised as per the directions of the Court after re examining the petitioner s case for promotion within the specified time and since there was no failure to comply with the directions no contempt had been committed
It was also submitted that the petitioner s medical categorisation has nothing to do with the refusal to promote him
Disposing of the petition HELD 1
The judgment of this Court did clearly proceed on the footing that the lower medical categorisation preju diced the petitioner in the matter of obtaining appropriate promotions
For the first time the respondents have taken the stand in the contempt proceeding that the lower categor isation has nothing to do with the refusal to accord promo tion to the petitioner
The plea now advanced cannot there fore be accepted
377E F 371 2
The defence services have their own peculiarities and special requirements
The considerations which apply to other government servants in the matter of promotion cannot as a matter of course be applied to defence personnel of the petitioner s category and rank
Requisite experience conse quent exposer and appropriate review are indispensable for according promotion and the petitioner therefore cannot be given promotions as claimed by him on the basis that his batch mates have earned such promotions
Individual capacity and special qualities on the basis of assessment have to be found but in the case of the petitioner these are not avail able
377G H 378A B 31 As regards compensation the petitioner advanced tail claims by contending that he has suffered physical and mental torture loss of reputation and of social acceptance and financial loss
What promotions the petitioner would otherwise have earned would be a matter of speculation and cannot be ascertained at this stage for lack of appropriate decisive criteria
His grievance that he suffered in dignity and humiliation as a result of being looked down upon by his batch mates friends and relatives has perhaps been suffi ciently met by the appellate judgment which has declared that his lower medical categorisation was unjustified and the petitioner continued to be Shape I without break from 1977
368E G 32 The defence personnel have peculiar incidence of service
Life s course does not run smoothly for everyone
Some relevant factors to be considered for award of compen sation are the duration of time for which the petitioner was subjected to various medical checks and hospitalisation and the consequent suffering which he underwent the loss of promotional prospects and the fact that he would now be obliged to request to be released from service prematurely
A total compensation of RS4 lakhs would meet the ends of justice
The petitioner would not be entitled to any other claim on these heads but he would be entitled to all other service benefits which an officer of the Lt Colonel s rank would be entitled to hold
378G H 379A B Major KD Gupta vs Union of India and Lt Col KD Gupta vs Union of India  referred to
This Court directed that the amount of Rs4 lakhs be paid to the petitioner within 2 months and the petitioner may be released from the defence service in accordance with any decision that might be taken on his request for such release
379C D 372