Delhi High Court orders reinstatement of Army man fired for hypertension

Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the petitioner to report to the concerned unit from where he was discharged within a period of 30 days.

The high court was hearing the plea of the army man challenging the discharge order of January 2022 and the October 2024 order of the Armed Forces Tribunal dispensing with his services.

‘No recommendation for retention’

• The high court noted that the sole disability for categorising the petitioner was primary hypertension, and his disability was assessed at 30 per cent.
• The court further noted that the petitioner, in his response to the authorities, stated that he was capable of carrying out his duties as a cook and sought permission to continue in service. 
• It was further noted that the petitioner was not recommended for retention due to an indifferent attitude to trade work or admin work. 
• However, the court clarified that the ground of ‘indifferent’ attitude to trade work or admin work is not the ground on which relevant Army rules can be invoked for discharging a sepoy. 
• The procedure for discharging a sepoy on the grounds of an ‘indifferent’ attitude is governed by a distinct procedure and is considered a disciplinary case. 
• The court further noted that the relevant commanding officer did not even consider the availability of the sheltered appointment in the unit.
• The court confirmed that the relevant commanding officer cannot discharge the petitioner without first seeking the recommendation of the Release Medical Board. 
• The court found that the recommendation for the petitioner’s discharge was not based on the non-availability of a sheltered appointment in the unit, nor was the discharge order issued on the recommendation of a Release Medical Board. 
• The court concluded that the discharge order is not in accordance with the procedure laid down in law. 

‘Discharged without pension benefits’

• It was also found that when the petitioner was recommended for discharge, he had not completed his minimum pensionable service and was short of three and a half years.
• The high court pointed out that it was even more important that the relevant authorities make best efforts to assess whether the petitioner could be accommodated in a sheltered appointment within the unit or offered an alternative employment.
• The discharge has resulted in him not being entitled to any pension despite having served well for 11 plus years.
• The high court directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in the services with effect from May 31, 2022.
• The court also mentioned that the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, pay and allowances and seniority as per the rules.
• It was further added that the petitioner will report to the concerned unit from where he was discharged within a period of 30 days.
• The high court directed that the pay and allowances and other benefits to which the petitioner is entitled be remitted within three months.

Dismissed for hypertension, disability 

The petitioner joined the Indian Army as a sepoy in 2011 and was found to be suffering from primary hypertension in June 2020. On recategorization in January 2021, he was diagnosed with 30 per cent disability. 

The petitioner was served with a show cause notice in November 2021, proposing to terminate his service due to the disability incurred. The petitioner submitted his reply requesting his retention in the service under the prevailing medical category.

It was stated that, however, the petitioner was made to sign some documents which were signed by the relevant authorities. Thereafter, he was discharged from his service with an order of January 2022. 

The authority concerned fixed the date of his discharge as May 31, 2022. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a plea before the tribunal, challenging the said discharge order of January 2022 and praying for reinstatement in service. 

However, the tribunal disposed of his plea in August 2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an application to review the judgment. However, the tribunal dismissed the said application by October 2024 order whilst stating that the petitioner should avail a remedy before the appropriate forum. 

Subsequently, the petitioner preferred the present petition before the Delhi High Court. 

Discharged before board constituted

Appearing in person, Singh argued that the suo moto initiated his discharge contrary to the mandatory Army rules; the discharge was contemplated without the conduct of the release medical board, which is sine qua non for initiating the discharge or invalidment from service.

It was further submitted that the petitioner had not appeared before the Release Medical Board because the said discharge order was issued before the relevant board was constituted, which is contrary to the Army rules.  

He stated that he had not completed the minimum qualifying service to earn the pensionary benefits, which is fifteen years, and to dispense with the services of such a person on medical disability, the medical board is a sine qua non. 

Not complied with directions 

On the contrary, Amit Gupta submitted that the petitioner’s unit confirmed that there was no sheltered appointment available, triggering the initiation of discharge proceedings under Army rule. 

He stated that the discharge order issued in January 2022 was read out twice to the petitioner. 

It was further added that the tribunal had directed the petitioner to appear before the Release Medical Board. However, the petitioner has not complied with the same, and therefore, pension formalities could not be concluded.