IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27100 of 2008 Between: Rameshwar Singh,Sub DVR (SPL VEH) (JC 759564-M) , R/o.MCEME,Secunderabad, AP ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India., rep.by the Secretary,Ministry of Defence,Government of India.,New Delhi-110011 2 The Officer, I/c. EME Records, Secunderabad, AP 3 The Colonel Administration & Officer Commanding Troops MC EME, Secunderabad, AP 4 The Commanding Officer,EME Depot BN Secunderabad, AP .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction orders or a writ more appropriately one in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing /declaring the action of the respondents herein "Declare the proceedings No.1523/T-4/184/CA- 2(MP) dated 7.Nov.2008 as being in contravention to the judgment of the Apex court dated 7.11.2008 in (UOI Vs Rajpal Singh in SLP(C) No. 6037/2007) as also a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 20.11.2008 in WP.(C) No.5946 /2007 Subedar (SKT) Puttal Lal & Others Vs Union of India & Others and also violative of petitioner Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India therefore ULTRA VIRES: Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CAPT.K.M.SAXENA Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed by Rameshwar Singh assailing the proceedings bearing No.1523/T-4/184/CA-2(MP), dated 7.11.2008, whereby and where under he is ordered to be discharged from service w.e.f. 31.12.2008 under Rule 13 (3) Item 1 (ii) of Army Rules, 1954. 2. The petitioner is a Junior Commissioned Officer of Indian Army, presently serving 3rd respondent-Colonel Administration and Officer Commanding Troops, MC EME under Commandant control of Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India-1st respondent. He has completed 28 years of regular term under the regulations for the Army Para 198(c)(ii) on 30.12.2007. Before completion of his 28 years of colour service, he has been granted two years of extension in terms of AG’s Branch proceedings No.B/33127/AG/PS(20)(C), dated 14-10-1998. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings impugned in this writ petition ordering release/discharge of the petitioner from service on the ground of drop in criteria Low Medical Category (Permanent). 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that extended period of two years has been withdrawn without subjecting him to Invalidation Medical Board (IMB) and therefore the proceedings impugned in this writ petition are not legal and proper. Hence, this writ petition. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri.M.Ratna Reddy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel received notice on behalf of respondents. 5. R2 and R3 filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been ordered for discharge from service on completion of his normal tenure of 28 years of service under Army Rule 13(3) I (ii). The petitioner was enrolled in the Corps of EME on 5-12- 1980. He has been promoted to the rank of Subedar w.e.f. 1.2.2008. The terms of engagement for Subedar rank as stipulated in para 163 of Regulations for the Army 1987 (revised edition) is 28 years of service with colours extendable by two years by screening or 52 years of age, whichever is earlier. He has completed 28 years of service on 5.12.2008 and is due for discharge from service on completion of his normal terms and conditions as the grant of two years service as CONDITIONALLY FIT by the screening board held on 11.4.2008 subject to his continuance in low medical category (temporary). Since the petitioner is in low medical category (permanent) with effect from 18th June, 2008, he has been ordered for his discharge. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that release of the petitioner without referring to Invalidation Medical Board is contrary to Army Rules. He took me to Army Rule 13(3)(I)(iii)(c) r/w 13(2A). He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6587 of 2008 (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJPAL SINGH) disposed of on 7-11-2008. 8. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that for Subedar Cadre 28 years is the pensionable service and since the petitioner has completed 28 years of service, he has been discharged and therefore there is no need of referring him to Invalidation Medical Board. He further contends that the judgment cited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the case on hand since release/discharge of the petitioner is after competing the contractual period of service. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that retired pensionable service is 30 years (28 + 2) and therefore, if the petitioner is to be discharged on the ground of Low Medical Category (Permanent), he is to be examined by the Medical Invalidation Board and unless and until the Medical Invalidation Board puts him under L.M.C. (permanent), he cannot be found unfit for extension of service by two more years. Whereas, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the assured service of the cadre of Subedar to which category the petitioner belongs is 28 years and the said service is extendable by two more years by screening. The learned Standing Counsel took me to the procedure and criteria for screening of personnel below officer rank (PBOR). 10. What is required under the procedure is the examination of individual by the Screening Committee. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the Appendix-A, which details the procedure and criteria for Screening of PBOR in the Army, which reads as hereunder: “(b) Medical Classification: (i) 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. (ii) The Screening boards would screen permanent low medical category PBOR with a view to assess their suitability for retention upto enhanced service or age limit, provided there is ample opportunity for up-gradation of their medical category by the subsequent re-categorisation medical board before commencement of the enhanced service limit. The screening board can declare them fit conditionally by adding a clause in their case “subject to his medical category being upgraded to the acceptable level before expiry of his normal tenure.” If they are not assessed fit by the screening board, they will be disposed off in the normal manner and will not be given the benefit of enhanced service limit. (iii) PBOR who are battle casualities, wounded in action and consequently placed in LMC (permt) will be eligible for enhanced service.” A plain reading of the above procedure indicates that it is the screening committee, which has to certify with regard to the fitness of the individual for extension of service by two more years. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. V. Rajpal Singh (supra) contends that unless the petitioner is examined by the Medical Invalidation Board, he cannot be found to be unfit for extension of service by two more years. In the cited case, the individual therein came to be discharged before the assured period of service. Whereas, coming to the facts of the case on hand, the extension of service by two more years came to be negatived to the petitioner because of his being categorized under LMC (permanent) by the Screening Committee. Therefore, the cited case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. 12. The letter dated 03.10.1998 emanating from Government of India indicates that to the cadre of Ris/Subedar, the pensionable service is 28 years extended by two years or 50 years of age, whichever is earlier. It is a matter of record that the petitioner has been subjected to medical examination by the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee categorized him as LMC (Permanent) in which case the petitioner is not entitled for extension of two years service. Therefore, I do not see any flaw in the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent. 13. Indisputably, the contract period of service for the rank of Subedar is 28 years. After completing 28 years of service, the petitioner has been discharged if he is not found to be fitted for extension of service by two more years. Since the Screening Committee categorizes him under low medical category (permanent), there is no obligation on the part of respondents to refer the petitioner for Medical Invalidation Board. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner did not make out any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 02nd April, 2009. Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O tnb/cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}