OA No. 2393 of 2013. Case: Surendra Oraon Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No. 2393 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Lt. Col. (Retd.) S.N. Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, CGC |
| Judges | Vinod Kumar Ahuja, J. (Member (J)) and Air Marshal (Retd.) S.C. Mukul, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Defence |
| Judgement Date | February 05, 2014 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
(Regional Bench At Chandimandir)
-
By this petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:
(a) Directions to the respondents to set aside the Records letter dated 2.1.2013 (Annexure A-4).
(b) Direction to the respondents to grant stay order on the execution of discharge order of the applicant and allow him to continue in service till he completes his pensionable service and
(c) Issue any other appropriate order or direction which his Hon'ble Bench may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this application.
-
The petition came up for hearing on 17th May, 2013 and stay order was issued on the discharge of the petitioner from service till completion of the proceedings.
-
Brief details of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the army on 11.02.1999 and was downgraded to Low Medical Category S1H1A1P3 (T-24) for six months for the first time from 7.10.2004 to 23.3.2005 for 'GENERALISED TONIC CLONIC SEIZUERE' and thereafter continued in low medical category till he was placed in LMC (Permanent) w.e.f. 21.2.2006.
-
On down gradation of his medical category to LMC (permanent) as per IHQ (Army) Letter No. B/10201/Vol-VI/MP-3 (PBOR) dated 20.09.2010, the petitioner on 30.9.2010 submitted his willingness to continue in service. Since there was deficiency of manpower in the Battalion, the authorities retained the petitioner in service in public interest and employed him in suitable sheltered appointment commensurate to his disability vide letter dated 3.6.2010.
-
The petitioner was re-categorised in the same category for further two years vide RSMB dated 10.3.2012 and accordingly submitted his willingness certificate. However, since there was no deficiency of manpower in the Battalion as well as unavailability of suitable sheltered appointment for the petitioner, the authorities did not recommend retention of the petitioner in service and accordingly discharge order was issued under provisions of Army Rule 13(3)(III)III(a)(i) amended vide SRO NO. 22 dated 13.5.2010 w.e.f. 31st May, 2013. On the discharge date the petitioner would have completed 14 years 4 months of service. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA No. 2393 of 2013 in this Tribunal on 14th May, 2013. Stay order on the discharge of the petitioner was ordered vide order of this Tribunal dated 17th May, 2013.
-
As per the averments of the petitioner he has already completed 14 years 3 months of service and has been giving his willingness to continue...
To continue reading
Request your trial