Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010020752023 2026:GAU-AS:2370 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/58/2023 EX TC 62078 RECT/BB RAMBIR S/O- ANANTA RAM, VILL- TEONTHA, P.O- TEONTHA, TEHSIL PUNDURI, DIST- KAITHAL, HARYANA, PIN- 136042 VERSUS AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND 3 ORS. THE SECRETARY, GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:LIEUTENANT GENERAL PRADEEP CHANDRAN NAIR AVSM YSM THE DG ASSAM RIFLES DG OF ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG- 11 3:GOVIND MOHAN THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-110003. 4:LIEUTENANT GENERAL VIKAS LAKHERA AVSM SM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG-11 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P RAI, MR. R DEKA,MS. S. SAIKIA,MR H BEZBARUA,MR. Page No.# 2/3 R MAZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K K PARASAR (r2), MR. K K PARASAR (R-4) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 18-02-2026 1. Heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/contemnors. 2. The petitioner, an Assam Rifle Constable, was discharged from his service on 27.12.2012 based on the decision of the Appellate Medical Board of Assam Rifle dated 03.10.2012. 3. The petitioner preferred the connected writ petition being WP(C) No. 2225/2016, assailing such decision dated 03.10.2012 and the same was allowed on 09.06.2022 interfering with the decision dated 03.10.2012 of the Appellate Medical Board as well as the order of discharge dated 27.12.2012. 4. A further direction was issued to constitute an Appellate/Review Medical Board and to consider the candidature of the petitioner for his continuance of service in the Assam Rifle. 5. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent/contemnor No.2, which goes to show that initially in terms of this Court’s order dated 09.06.2022, a Review Medical Board was held w.e.f. 06.08.2022 to 12.08.2022. Based on the opinion of the ENT. Specialist of Military Hospital, Shillong dated 10.08.2022, the petitioner was found to be fit. However, the aforesaid Board recommended for holding a fresh Medical Board/Detailed Medical Examination (DME). Page No.# 3/3 6. Accordingly, another Review Medical Board was held w.e.f. 13.10.2022 to 21.10.2022, in which the Review Medical Board found the petitioner unfit for overweight and hypertension. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 09.06.2022 (supra), has duly been complied with. 8. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands closed. 9. It is needless to say that the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy, if he questions about holding of two Review Medical Boards as has been raised in the present contempt petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant