Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010277742023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI WP(C)/7189/2023 1. Md. Tayab Ali Choudhury, Age-24 years, S/o JC-664432N late Nur Uddin Choudhury, Bhairab Naqgar, Krishnapur, Cachar, Assam, PIN-788025 …… Petitioner -Versus- 1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New-Delhi, PIN-110001. 2. The Commandant, 571 ASC BN, C/o 99 APO, Army Cantonment, Missamari, Tezpur, District Sonitpur, Assam. 3. The commanding Officer, ASC, Records (South), Bangalore, PIN-900493 C/) 56 APO. 4. The principal Controller of Defense, Accounts (Pension), Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. …… Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. D. Das, Sr. Advocate & Mr. B. Purkayastha For the Respondent(s) : Ms. A. Gayan, CGC · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A Page No.# 2/15 · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.11.2025 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Date : 27-11-2025 Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the scheme for compassionate appointment under Central Government, which is published on 02.08.2022. The facts shorn-of-unnecessary details are that the petitioner’s father enrolled as a Driver (MT) in the Indian Army on 04.05.1984. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Naib Subedar. While he was serving as a Naib Subedar in the Army Cantonment and posted at Missamari in Assam, he fell ill and had undergone medical treatment at the Command Hospital in Kolkata. Subsequently, he was discharged on 03.08.2012 with a remark that Page No.# 3/15 he was unable to walk due to skull defect (Carnioplasty Dome) and he was recommended for sick leave and review thereafter. It is the claim of the petitioner that during the services rendered by his father, he had rendered his service to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of all concerned and was awarded several medals and citations for the services rendered. His character at the time of retirement was assessed as ‘Exemplary’. However, in spite of the treatment undertaken by the petitioner’s father, he could not recover and was therefore, released from the Command Hospital (EC) Kolkata. Subsequently, he was released from service on medical grounds w.e.f. 26.12.2012. At the relevant point in time, the writ petitioner was a minor and therefore, he could not apply for compassionate appointment at that time. However, subsequently, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on attaining majority. 3. The claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the appointment under the compassionate scheme applicable for Defence Personnel are only meant for dependents of the Armed forces personnel who died in harness or was medically invalidated out where the competent medical authority considered the disability as unsuitable Page No.# 4/15 for civil employment. Upon scrutiny of the documents of the father of the writ petitioner, it was found that the competent medical authority in respect of the father of the writ petitioner, had endorsed that he was fit for Civil Employment. Therefore, employment assistance on compassionate ground is not applicable to the dependents of such the deceased soldier. The widow of the soldier and the mother of the petitioner filed an appeal before the higher authorities, which also came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this rejection is contrary to the scheme itself. Referring to the particulars recorded in the pension payment order available and issued to the father of the writ petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the PPO particulars reflect the cause of discharge as “medically unfit for further service.” He therefore, submits that this cause for discharge has to be understood in the context of the person concerned that the person concerned who is medically boarded out is unfit for services both under the Defence as well as for Civil Employment. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered in terms of the scheme of 02.08.2022. Referring to the Page No.# 5/15 scheme, the learned counsel submits that the scheme provides for consideration of the cases of the dependent members of the Armed forces who are medically boarded out and are unfit for Civil Employment. As the particulars reflect that the petitioner’s caused for discharged was shown to be “unfit for further service”, it has to be construed that he was found to be unfit for both Military as well as Civil Employment. Therefore, the respondents were required to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment dated 02.08.2022 and the rejection of the case of the petitioner is therefore contrary to the provisions of the scheme itself. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the objections raised by the respondents that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to deal with this matter and the matter ought to have been filed before the Armed Forces Tribunal, is also unacceptable in view of the fact that similar issues have been dealt with by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2695/2022 (Mahakam Singh vs. Union of India and Others) which was dismissed by order dated 19.12.2022 as well as the Allahabad High Court rendered in Union of India Thru’ Secy & 2 Others vs. Kapil Kumar reported in 2015 SCC OnLine All 7249. Referring to these Page No.# 6/15 Judgments, the learned counsel submits that this Court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the lis before this Court and pass appropriate orders, as prayed for in the writ petition. 6. The learned CGC on the other hand strongly objects to the submissions made by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is contested by filing an affidavit by the respondents. The respondents reiterate their contentions that there is no infirmity in the order rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment as in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment, it is only the dependent members of those defence personnel, who are medically boarded out and were found to be unfit for Civil Employment, who are eligible to be considered under the scheme. According to the learned CGC, the petitioner’s father although was medically boarded out, was not found unfit for Civil Employment and therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner as the petitioner was not declared unfit for Civil Employment. The further contentions of the respondents are that the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, has issued a clarification in respect of certain queries which are frequently asked in respect of Page No.# 7/15 compassionate appointment. Referring to the Annexure enclosed to the affidavit, it is submitted that in respect of the query regarding the applicability of the scheme to the members of the Armed Forces, the Ministry admitted that it was applicable, subject to the Armed Force personnel being killed in service or killed in action or is medically boarded out and is unfit for civil employment. The learned CGC, therefore submits that the question, which is before the Court has been clearly answered and clarified by the Department of Personnel & Training. The respondent authorities have therefore correctly considered the same and rejected the claim of the writ petitioner. 7. During the course of the hearing, the learned CGC has also placed before the Court a copy of the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer in respect of the writ petitioner. Although, the certificate placed before the Court is not legible in respect of the medical opinion, however, the certificate in respect of the medical condition is legible and it reflects that the father of the petitioner is found to be fit for Civil Employment and that the disability is not likely to interfere in performance of suitable duties. The certificate was issued on 26.11.2012. Copy of the certificate issued is kept in the case Page No.# 8/15 records as the same is not enclosed in any of the pleadings. 8. The learned CGC, therefore, submits that where the Department of Personnel & Training has already clarified the position and the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer clearly reflects that the petitioner’s father is fit for Civil Employment as the disability suffered by the father of the petitioner is not likely to interfere in the performance of suitable duties, the petitioner is not suitable to be considered for appointment under the scheme for compassionate appointment and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondents, which is impugned in the present writ petition, rejecting the prayer for consideration for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, merits dismissal. 9. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard, pleadings available on record have been perused. The judgments cited at the bar have also been taken note of. 10. The question of the maintainability of the writ petition which is raised by the respondents that the petitioner ought to have approached the Armed Forces Tribunal does not appear to be correct. Page No.# 9/15 11. Clause 3B of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act provides that the Armed Forces Tribunal will look into the matters relating to service which includes appointments. Presently, the petitioner is not in the employment of the Armed Forces. This is not a challenge made with regard to the conditions of service or any other facet relating to his service conditions under the Armed Forces. Presently, the petitioner is not employed under the Armed Forces, rather he seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him under the Scheme for Compassionate appointment. Therefore, the objections raised by the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable are therefore are overruled. 12. At the outset, it is necessary to refer to the scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Government and the relevant portions are extracted below : (A) of a government servant who (b) is retired on medical grounds under Rules 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rules 1957 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants); or (c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the Page No.# 10/15 corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants); or (B) of a member of the Armed Forces who - (c) is medically boarded out and is unfit for civil employment. 13. From a bare perusal of Clause 3 as extracted above, it is clear that the scheme is applicable to dependent family members of government servant, who are classified under Clause A or under Clause B. The scheme also specifies that a dependent family member includes the member of Armed Forces referred to in Clause A and B of the para No. 3. It is seen from the scheme itself that Clause A contains three categories namely, (A) of a Government servant who – (a) dies while in service (including death by suicide); or (b) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rules 1957 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants); or (c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ’D’ Government servants); or Page No.# 11/15 14. Each of the clauses are separated by the conjunction ‘or’. Similarly Clause B also contains three clauses: (B) of a member of the Armed Forces who - (a) dies during service; or (b) is killed in action; or (c) is medically boarded out and is unfit for civil employment. 15. The clauses A and B clearly reflects that Clause A is applicable to Government servants. Clause B is applicable for members of Armed Forces. Note (i) to the said clause reflects that the dependent family members includes Armed Forces refer to in Clause A or Clause B of these paragraph and who was wholly dependent on the Government servant at the time of his death in harness or retirement or medical grounds as the case may be. 16. In so far as the medical certificate of the father of the writ petitioner is considered and a copy of which is placed before the Court at the time of hearing; this certificate issued reflects as under : “No. JC-664432 N Rank-SUB/MT Name- NURUDDIN CHOUDHARY unit-571 ASC BN, C/o 99 APO if FIT for civil employment and the disability is not likely to interfere in the performance of suitable duties.” 17. The certificate reflects that the petitioner is fit for Civil Employment and Page No.# 12/15 the disability is not likely to interfere in the performance of suitable duties. 18. A perusal of the scheme reveals that at note No. (I)- dependent family members while including Armed Forces also makes a reference to Clause 3 (A) and (B). Although 3 (A) is shown to be applicable to the government servant and 3 (B) is shown to be applicable to a members of the Armed Forces, there may be instances where notwithstanding a person who is a government servant and is covered under Clause 3(A) at the relevant point of time could have been with the services of the Armed forces, perhaps discloses the intention of the rule making authority. The scheme also lays down the time frame for consideration of the applications for compassionate appointment. At Clause 10 (A), it is provided that the request for compassionate appointment, even where the death, or the retirement on medical grounds took place long back, say 5 years or so, it can be considered by the authorities, keeping in view, the concept of compassionate appointment, which is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the government servant in order to relieve it from economic distress. 19. Having noted the clauses of the scheme, it is quite clear that there are Page No.# 13/15 two categories which are shown to be eligible in respect of dependent family member under Clause 3. Clause 3(A) is applicable to government servant whereas Clause 3(B) is shown to be applicable to Armed Forces. Since this matter relates to the personnel of the Armed Forces for the purposes of this case, the eligibility of a dependent member will have to be examined keeping in view the conditions prescribed under 3B(C) which specifically provides that it is applicable in respect of the member of the Armed Forces, who is medically boarded out and is considered unfit for Civil Employment. There is no dispute that the petitioner’s father did not die in harness. He was medically boarded out of service. What is in dispute is whether, he is considered to be unfit for Civil Employment. 20. The medical certificate, which is placed before the court by the respondent authorities, clearly reflects that the late father of the petitioner is considered fit for Civil Employment and that the disability he suffered is not likely to interfere in the performance of suitable duties. This certificate has not been assailed by the petitioner before the competent authorities of the forces. The only reference made by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner in this regard are the particulars shown in the PPO details, which reflect the Page No.# 14/15 clauses that the petitioner is medically unfit for further service. 21. In respect of the medical condition of any employee, the certificate, which is to be relied on is the certificate issued by the medical professional. 22. In that view of the matter, the certificate, which is issued by the Medical Officer showing the petitioner’s father to be fit for Civil Employment and that the disability is not likely to interfere in the performance of suitable duties has to be relied upon and will have to be given due credence over and above the particulars which are reflected in the PPO details enclosed to the writ petition. Therefore, the Court comes to the conclusion that the eligibility of the petitioner has to be considered by the respondents under the scheme of compassionate appointment in terms of the parameters prescribed under the Clause 3B. Clause 3B(C) clearly reflects that a dependent family member is eligible subject to the member of the Armed Forces being medically boarded out and is also unfit for Civil Employment. This being the object of the scheme, the interpretation sought to be projected by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner that the impugned order be interfered with set aside cannot be accepted and are therefore rejected. The rejection of the petitioner by the respondent Page No.# 15/15 authorities in terms of clause 3B being inconsonance with the scheme itself cannot be faulted with and therefore no interference at this stage is called for. 23. In that view of that matter the writ petition stands dismissed. No order is to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant