Supreme Court clarifies medical discharge procedure for army personnel: Ram Khilawan vs. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: September 2, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 861
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can an army personnel be discharged from service due to medical reasons without a proper evaluation by an Invalidating Medical Board? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Ex-Sepoy (Washerman) Ram Khilawan vs. Union of India & Ors. The court examined the procedures for medical discharge under the Army Rules, 1954, and clarified the importance of an Invalidating Medical Board before discharging personnel on medical grounds. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Ram Khilawan, was enrolled in the Army as a Washerman on October 23, 1987. He was discharged from service on August 31, 1993, due to “CNS (IN) Seizure” after being placed in Low Medical Category BEE on August 27, 1992. Aggrieved by his discharge, Ram Khilawan filed a statutory complaint on August 11, 2007, arguing that he was not given a show-cause notice by the Commanding Officer before his discharge, as required under Rule 13(3) Item III (v) of the Army Rules, 1954. The complaint was rejected on October 12, 2007, on the grounds that no suitable sheltered appointment was available for him.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was later transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, after the commencement of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The Tribunal upheld the discharge, noting that Ram Khilawan was placed in a permanent Low Medical Category BEE and had restrictions that prevented him from being employed in a sheltered appointment. The Tribunal also noted that he had received a disability pension of 20% for five years.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging his discharge. However, with the enactment of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the case was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow. The Tribunal upheld the discharge, agreeing with the Army’s stance that no sheltered appointment was available for the appellant due to his medical restrictions. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had been granted a disability pension. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Army Rules, 1954, particularly Rule 13, which outlines the authorities empowered to authorize discharge.
Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules, 1954 states:

“13. Authorities empowered to authorize discharge. – (1) Each of the authorities specified in column 3 of the Table below shall be the competent authority to discharge service person subject to the Act specified in column 1 thereof on the grounds specified in column 2.”

The table under Rule 13(3) specifies the grounds for discharge and the competent authority. Specifically, Item III of the table deals with persons enrolled under the Act who have been attested.

• Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) states that a person can be discharged if they are found medically unfit for further service. This discharge must be carried out on the recommendation of an Invaliding Board.
• Rule 13(3)(III)(iii)(a) states that a person can be discharged if they are found to be in a permanent low medical category SHAPE 2/3 by a medical board and no sheltered appointment is available in the unit or if the person is surplus to the organization. This discharge is to be carried out on the recommendations of a Release Medical Board.
• Rule 13(3)(III)(v) is a residual clause for all other classes of discharge, where the Brigade/Sub-Area Commander is the competent authority. This clause requires the commander to give the person an opportunity to show cause against the contemplated discharge, if circumstances permit.

The Court also considered Army Order No. 46 of 1980, which provides guidelines for the disposal of permanent low medical category personnel other than officers. This order states that such personnel will be discharged if no suitable alternative appointments are available, or if their retention is not considered necessary in the interest of the service. However, it also mentions that such personnel are ordinarily retained until they complete 10 years of service.

The Court noted that the Army Order 46 of 1980, is based on Ministry of Defence Letter No. A/32395/VIII/Org 2 (MP) (c)/713-S/A/D (AG) dated 10-5-1977 as amended vide Corrigendum No. A/32395/X/Org 2 (MP) (c)/7167/A/D (AG) dated 26-11-1979.

Arguments

The appellant argued that his discharge was illegal because he was not subjected to an Invalidating Medical Board as required under Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954. He contended that the discharge was solely on the ground of medical unfitness, making the procedure under clause (iii) applicable.

The respondents argued that the discharge was under clause III(v) of Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules, 1954, which does not require an Invalidating Medical Board. They also contended that the appellant himself admitted in his statutory complaint that he was discharged under Rule 13(3) Item III (v) of the Army Rules, 1954. They further argued that the appellant was placed in a low medical category and no sheltered appointment was available for him.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the discharge of the appellant was valid under the Army Rules, 1954, specifically Rule 13(3)(III), and whether the appellant should have been subjected to an Invalidating Medical Board before being discharged.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the discharge of the appellant was not valid. The Court reasoned that the discharge was based on the appellant being placed in a Low Medical Category, which falls under Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954. This clause mandates that such a discharge must be based on the recommendation of an Invalidating Board.

The Court clarified that Rule 13(3)(III)(v) is a residual clause applicable to all other classes of discharge not covered under the other sub-clauses of Rule 13(3)(III). Since the appellant’s discharge was specifically due to medical unfitness, clause (iii) was applicable, and thus, the discharge without an Invalidating Board was illegal.

The Court also referred to its earlier judgments in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajpal Singh [(2009) 1 SCC 216] and Smt. Sulekha Rani v. Union of India and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1280 of 2019 decided on July 16, 2019), to support its conclusion that discharge on medical grounds requires an Invalidating Medical Board.

The Court noted that the respondents relied on Rule 13(3)(III)(v), but held that it would not operate in an area covered by medical unfitness.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure strict adherence to the procedural safeguards provided under the Army Rules, 1954. The Court emphasized that when a discharge is based on medical unfitness, the procedure under Rule 13(3)(III)(iii), which mandates an Invalidating Medical Board, must be followed. This was to protect the rights of the army personnel. The Court’s reasoning also focused on the correct interpretation and application of the relevant rules and orders. The Court also emphasized that it is not the recital of a provision which is relevant to determine as to whether the personnel is discharged under clause (v) or clause (iii) of Rule 13(3)(III) of the Rules. It is the object, language and the purport of the discharge which will be relevant to determine whether an army personnel had been discharged under clause (iii) or clause (v).

The Court stated, “Since the discharge of the appellant is covered by clause (iii) of Rule 13(3)(III) of the Rules, as the discharge of the appellant was only on the ground of his medical unfitness for further service, therefore, he could not be invalidated out of service without the recommendation of the Invalidating Board.”

The Court also stated, “It is the object, language and the purport of the discharge which will be relevant to determine whether an army personnel had been discharged under clause (iii) or clause (v). Clause (v) is the residual clause when other clauses are not applicable to such personnel.”

The Court further stated, “The provisions Rule 13(3)(III)(v) upon which reliance has been placed had no application to the case. It would not operate in an area which is covered by medical unfitness.”

The Court also determined that in terms of clause (b) of General Principles of Army Order 46 of 1980, the appellant was entitled to be retained for ten years. Since he joined the service on October 23, 1987, he would be deemed to be discharged only on October 22, 1997.

Key Takeaways

• Discharge of army personnel on medical grounds must follow the procedure outlined in Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954, which mandates an Invalidating Medical Board.
• Rule 13(3)(III)(v) is a residual clause and does not apply to cases of medical unfitness.
• Army personnel in the “Other Ranks” category are entitled to be retained for ten years, even if placed in a low medical category.
• If discharged without following the correct procedure, the personnel is entitled to pension benefits.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant would be entitled to pension in addition to the disability pension he had already received. However, he would not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period up to the date of discharge, based on the principle of “no work, no pay.” The appellant was granted arrears of pension for a period of three years prior to the filing of his writ petition, and the respondents were directed to pay these arrears within six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the discharge of an army personnel on medical grounds must be carried out as per the procedure laid down in Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954, which mandates an Invalidating Medical Board. This judgment clarifies the scope of Rule 13(3)(III) and emphasizes the importance of following the correct procedure when discharging personnel on medical grounds. It also reinforces the principle that medical discharge cannot be done without the recommendation of an Invalidation Board. This is a reaffirmation of the position of law as laid down in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajpal Singh [(2009) 1 SCC 216] and Smt. Sulekha Rani v. Union of India and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1280 of 2019 decided on July 16, 2019).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Khilawan vs. Union of India & Ors. clarifies the procedure for medical discharge of army personnel. The Court held that the discharge of the appellant was illegal because it was not done through the Invalidation Board. The Court emphasized that Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954, mandates an Invalidating Medical Board for discharges based on medical unfitness. This judgment ensures that the rights of army personnel are protected and that the correct procedures are followed. The court also clarified that the appellant was entitled to pension benefits and arrears.