IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8588 of 2008 EX.SWR.PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,ARMY NO. 15466168 M., S/O SRI KAPIL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BELAGARI, P.O. TETARAR, TEH-SASARAM, P.S. AKORHIGOLA, DISTRICT ROHTAS (BIHAR). .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DEFENCE SECRETARY, ARMY H.Q. DEFENCE, H.Q., NEW DELHI. 2.THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF, ARMY H.Q. DEFENCE, H.Q., NEW DELHI. 3.THE RECORDS OFFICER, KAVACHIT CORPS, ABHILEKH ARMOURED CORPS RECORDS, AHMAD NAGAR, (MAHARASTRA). .............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 05.05.2011 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Government of India representing the Army authorities this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ application is a flagrant abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner was enrolled in Army on 28.10.1994 and was discharged on 30.09.1999 on medical ground. Subsequently, the petitioner came to this court in the year 2005 and had filed C.W.J.C No. 3566 of 2005 claiming disability pension as also medical benefit of Army Group Insurance w.e.f. the date of his discharge i.e. 01.10.1999. Petitioner therefore, had accepted his being discharged on medical ground without any demur or protest and in 2 fact was interested in getting his only pension fixed by way of grant of disability pension and also medical benefits under Army group Insurance. That writ petition was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 27.09.2007, wherein, this court has held as follows:- 'On consideration of the submissions advanced before this Court and after perusal of the factual aspects of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the claim of the petitioner projected through this writ petition. The petitioner had defaulted in filing appeal as contemplated in the order rejecting his claim for grant of disability pension. Thereafter, he waited on the wings for at least five years before approaching this Court by way of writ petition. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be held to be bound by the principle of acceptance sub silentio and the Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction may not come to the rescue of the petitioner. On factual aspects also it appears that the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner and on the basis of materials available before them, they have rightly taken decision not to grant disability pension to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that since the liberty was given to the petitioner for re-employment 3 in the Army on the ground that his visibility was less than 20 per cent, the petitioner was entitled to file this writ application, inasmuch as, earlier he was not aware of the extent of his disability. In the considered opinion of this Court, such plea of the petitioner has to be noted only for its being rejected. The petitioner was absolutely ill- advised to file this writ application for his reinstatement in Army Service by challenging that very decision of his discharge on medical ground on the basis of which he had already claimed grant of disability pension. In fact, the petitioner will be bound by the principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The issue of reinstatement in service by setting aside the decision of his discharge on medical ground on 30.09.1999 in the writ petition filed on 23.05.2008 even otherwise cannot be gone into, on account of inordinate delay and also because the petitioner had never assailed the said order of his discharge by filing an appeal as has been noted in the earlier order of this Court 4 while dismissing his writ application. As a matter of fact, on one stage this Court was also inclined to look into the aspect as with regard to his re-employment but then counsel for the respondents have rightly relied on an order of this Court dated 07.09.2010 passed in L.P.A. NO.1060 of 2010, wherein, it has been held that a person in Army service having been discharged on medical ground would not be entitled for re- employment. Moreover, the petitioner has not raised the issue of re-employment in this writ application which is confined to his prayer for reinstatement as a consequence of setting aside the order of his discharge on medical ground dated 30.09.1999. That however is simply not permissible either on fact or in law. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)