cl + .f9*g9gl: t8#3,0_0p:= il@oe r++s^ooa, 591/2008. 359212009 q5qil?nna ?tro/ t1rl^a 2c1c,.t.|^n 9199{2992, 3q?gq8J_ 4e 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W,lggE lgll tqqg. ziqlal ??!?t?0 a_L 6ea r98_a . 9e 4s ez??r?aot. e+?s_r?gs4, sq rrFl;r,or wt4E- s_?ggt?oa7. 88!7_t?A_97,, 80 ?!?t-r?got , gt1=z,qo_-9.1, gt1 w?gJ w 96H199J, e64g/2oo?, 8i-s z 4{=z g qq. z g orz g ?=e, E 4=61,? g g e,@0 0 B, 3 s 7U 0 0d. :94{?_Qgq ttt,?90q. !?1,root Iga ?ggg. ze6 -ogg. =qg+ -oo8 911{?ggq, 982/2ggg.'g?9/.2 l??Z{?999 ano :2ry=zo l6galzooe, r+rslzo0 n ?e,1^t1^na Itz 1?999. goolrg=or, n=o}Lrqo ggg4ggg = e70,2 g=09,_ gZ2,2 19191?999 1149/?ogg. iif? +9gv?099 13gZ ?gqq l )4]q29g8=, r4!y2=w, fi 14rg{rggg. tug?1?ggq, lggr{?098, 16ql{3 1Z?rlqgg tt?g{rgog. t7 1J3?:^q98, 17tgl2ogB, ?1?!t?909. 234-gt,z_!0s, ?1Zt1rggg r3?g l- a. ?9991?og9, rrt?1?ggg@ffi 59 WP (C) No.59a5 of 2O07 ond other connected matters Page 7 of 8 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 87 20 8L92 2008 08, 806 813 4527 t2008 3t200 B1 SUBEDAR(SI'.T) PUTTAN LAL - AND OTHER CONNECTED PETITIONERS ...PETIT|ONER(S) Through: Major K. Ramesh, Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Ms. Neelam Rathore, Col. S.R. Kalkal, Mr. Rajeev Anand, Mr. C.M. Khanna, Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Col. C.K. Sharma, Col. A.S. Chauhan, Mr. Mohan Kumar, Mr. N.L. Bareja, Mr. Hitender Sakkarwal, Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Mr. EJ. Varghese, Mr. Kuljiwan Goyal, Mr. Alok Kishor, Mr. Kundan Kumar, Mr. Anil Kumar pandey, Mr. Rajeev Anand, Mr. B.p. . Shukla, Mr. S.M. Dalal, Mr. D.S. Kauntae, Mr.Sournyajit . Pani, Dr.Alok K,Sharma, Mr.R.D.Tyagi, Captain K.M.Saxena, Ms. Rekha palli with Ms. punam Singh, Mr. S.L. Kumar with Mr. B,K, Ahluwalia, Col.S.S.Chhawal, Mr. A.K. Bakshi with Mr. Romesh Gautam, Ms.Bandana Shukla, Mr.R.K.Sharma, Mr.Aagney Sail' & Mr.Abhik Kumar, Mr.M.S.Sasan, Dr.R.S.Sasan, Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Ms.Jagrati Singh for Mr. M,K.Bhardwaj, Mr.S.K.Kumar, Mr.B.V.K.Ahluwalia and Ms.Rita Hingmang, Advocates for the petitioners. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS Through:' Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Mr. Manoj Ohri, Mr. Hemant Gupta, Mr. puneet. Khurana, Ms.Monica Garg, Mr.Shakir Hasan, Mr.Amiet Andley, Mr. Saroj. Bidawlt, Col. R. Balasubiamaniam,Mr. Aakash pratap, Ms. Barkha Babbar, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Mr, pankaj Batra, Mr. Anil Gautam, Mr. M.M. Beg,. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Ms;Shilpa ' Singh, Mr.yogesh Varma, Mr.prakash Kum5r, ' WP (C) No.5946 of 2007 ond oth'er connected matters Poge 2 of 8 N Mr.Jaswinder 5ingh, Ms. Monika Garq, t'Ar\4rruu Liberhan, Mr.Rohit Malik, Mr.Jatin Ohawan, \ Mr. M.Y. Khan, Mr. Amiet.Andlay, Mr. S.M. ZulfigarAlam, wis.Jyoti Singh, Mr. Ankur ChhiE6e'i Mi. A.S. Sillgh, Mr.Pankaj Batra, Mr. Saleem Ahmed with Mr. Habibur Rahman, Mr. Sanjay Katyal with Mr. Ranjeet KumarJha, tt4r. Vikas Sethi wiflr Ms, tvlaninder Acharya, Mr. Rajan Sabharwal with Ms. Seema Bhadauriya, Mr, Pushkar Sood with Mr. Varun Kathuria, ' ' Mr. Sewa Ram with Mr. R.K. Bachchan, ... . Mr. Dalip Mehra with Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Mr. Jai Bansal and Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocates, proxy for Ms. Madhu Sharan, Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Mr. R,V. Sinha, Mr. A,S. Singh and Mr.puneet Khurana, Advocates along with Colonel G.S.Aul and__IUalor S.S. @ipondents. Advocates for the Respondents: CORAM: HON'BLE rUR. JUSTTCE SANJAY KTSHAN K,.AUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG L. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? sAf'uAY KISHAN r..AUL, l. (ORAL) 1. The common question wlrich arises for consideration in this batcir of petitions is as to wlietlier an army personnel could have been discharged from service without holding the Invaliding Medical Board ('lMB' for short). A Division Bench of ' this Court had held against the respondents against which the respondents preferred a Special Leave petition. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized of the matter, it issued directions that this Court should stay its hand till the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court is available on this aspect. lii/e may also note that interim orders were granted by this Court, but the Supreme Court vacated the interim orders and in view thereof a general WP (C) I'1o.5946 oJ 2OO7 ond othet cannected maiters Page j of 8 $ interim order was passed by this court on 14.05.200g t "uping \ in mind the orders passed b-v the supreme court whereby the benefit of stay was restricted to the service personnel continuing in the accommodation provided by the Army. 2. The supreme court has delivered a judgment in civir Appeal No.65B7l2008 in union of India & ors v. Raioal Sinqh on 07.11.2008. The question. which has been decided has been succinctly set out in para 2 of the order itself as to whether the holcJing of an IMB is a conclition precedent for discharge of a Juniclr Commissioner Officer (JCO') on account of low medical category. 3. we may add here that this principle wourd actually apply not .only'to the JCOs alone, but also to all the personnel Below Officers Rank ('PBORs' for short). ,' The conclusion of the supreme court is that the High court was correct in holding that the PBoRs could not be ciischarqed from service without holding an lfi,lB.. 4. The resuit of tlre aforesaid judgment is that all the present petitions are liable to be allowed. 5. we have heard the counsel for the parties for purposes of concluding as to what directions are required to be passed in the present petitions. The following directions are accordingly issued: i) The order passed by the Chief of Army Staff dated 12.04.20a7 directing discharge of all the personnel in Low Medical Category without holcling the llr4B is quashed. ii) The petitioners who stand discharged as a consequence of the aforesaid order are entiiled to be reinstated with all n'P ft) I'to.5946 ol 200i ond other connecled motters Irnnp A af I consequential benefits including continuity of service, prry and \e allowances and seniority as per the rules:... -.....---.--..-. \ \ . iii) The petitioners would report to their respective \ \ . Regimental centre from where they have been discharged . within a period of 30 days from today for joining\ The pay and .. allowances and other f66fit, to such of the petitioners who have not been paid the pension and retiral benefits including by AGIF arising from the discharge order will be remitted within a maximu^m period .of three. months from tod'ay. ' Naturally, this would be applicable only to such of the petitioners who join within the aforesaid time, iv) . There are certain petitioners who have been paid pension, retiral benefits and amount by AGtF and if they seek to re-join naturally they have to refund the amount. Howevei, they are . also entitled to be paid th.e qay,and gj.lgwa.nSg5.. Thus,only the , " " i;*- ^.'.. '.'.. ", i: i :i-..i .'j, r.r +:. .;1ii:"-;r1iii- - .. .'i, , .,.1, .': , .. . . ',' ' ,"'rie-t a-'m'ount has. to be'refurided by. themriilri.",'r"rp6noents wiil '-..-:...*-.l':..;:'-..';,:'-'.::.i.i^:.';i'.,'..::- ' infoim iuch p'er'sons 'about thei'n6t-ar4bunt which has to be refunded back by them and the amount be remitted by such persons within 30 days of intimation of the amount to be remitted back by them. ' -.' v) ln respect of . aforesaid direction (iv), if the balance , amount is'not remitted back to the respondents, it will be ; - deemed that such peiitioners have a'ccepteo their discharge. ' ' vi) In case ot tne pbgitioners who have not been discharged, - naturally the opcasion'to discharge them now would not arise . without holding the lMB. WP (C) No.59A6 of ZOOZ ond other connected.motters Page 5 of 8 vii)The respondents are not precluded from holding the tUf{ 1950, The Army Rules, 1954 and Army lnstructions. viii) in view ot ttie passage of timd frbm the date of discharge . till the date of rejoining, it will be open to the respondents to . carry. out any police 'verification as . may be deemed appropriate by the responderrts. '6. we would have disposed of all these writ petitions with the aforesaid directions alone, but we are conscious of the fact that there are'a large number of personnel who have been discharged under the policy which has been herd to be ilregal by the Supreme Qourt. This has already started resulting in a spate of petitions before this Court. Such policy decision was taken on 12.04.2007 and is in proximity of time. In order to ' .,. . give option to such other persons who may hot have_ " - approached the Court tilt now arising ab a conseqlience of the judgment of the Supreme Court and to avoid such unnecessary spate, . of .litigation before this Court, it has become necessary to issue certain further general directions ' even in respect of the PBORs who have not approached any Court till date. This is not only in the interest of such persons 'but also' in the interest of the respondents and to avoid unnecessary huge litigation. 7. Insofar as the aforesaid persons are concerned, the . following directions are issued: i) Individual options will be sent by the respondents to such persons within two months making an offer to them to rejoin if they.so. desire as per'the aforesaid directions passed in the wP (C) No,S9aG of 20O7 ond other connected motters Page 6 of 8 present writ petitions. The option letter will indicate that such d\ option has to be exercised within a period of 30 days of the \ receipt of the letter -an+ in case the retiral and pensionary benefits have been paid to them, such persons must rejoin along with the amount liable to be refunded by them to the respondents which shall also be indicated in the option letter' ii) The respondents will also give a public notice/advertisement apart from issuing the individual notice in a suitable manner preferably in national newspapers. iii)lt is made clear that such persons will also be governe.d by all the directidns made in respect of the petitioners herein insofar as applicable. .iv)The general directions are applicable only to such of the persons who have been discharged or proposed to be discharged under the policy letter dated 12.O4.2OO7 or those who.mayhavebeendischargedear|ierbuthavea|ready approached the competent court by filing a petition v)lt is pointed out that there may be certain PBORs, which may also include some petitioners, whose normal date of superannuation has already arrived or would arrive befOre the aforeSaid optiOn is issued. ln such caSes, the persons would be entitled to only the benefit of pay and allowances for the differential period after adjusting any additional benefit arising from the premature discharge. lJeedless to say that those who decide not to rejoin after their premature discharge would neither be entitled to any pay and allowances nor would be required to repay the amount, if any, paid to them after their premature discharge. wP (C) No.5946 of 2007 ond other connected motters Poge 7 of I The petitions stand allowed with the aforesaid CM 77112008 in WP(C)389/200b In view of the disposal of the writ application does not survive for consideration stands disposed of, NOVEMBER 20, 2OOB dm directions. petition, the and the same WP (C) No.5946 of 2007 ond other connected motters Page 8 of 8