GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by six Rifleman (GD) of the Assam Rifles, who were discharged from service in 2001 due to medical unfitness during basic training. The court directed that their appointments should be recognised from the original date in 2001, following a legal battle over their dismissal and subsequent re-appointment in 2015.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi issued the order, stating that the break in service from 2001 to 2015 was not attributable to any fault of the petitioners, and their discharge was consistently challenged and overturned by the High Court.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
The case dates back to 2001 when a recruitment process for the post of Rifleman (GD) was initiated by the Assam Rifles. The petitioners, who had passed the required tests and were selected, were appointed on May 23, 2001. However, during their basic training, they were discharged from service on October 31, 2001, for being medically unfit.
The petitioners filed separate writ petitions, which resulted in a High Court order directing the Assam Rifles to conduct a review medical board examination. The petitioners were subsequently found medically fit, but were not re-inducted into service due to overage.
Following further legal battles, the petitioners were re-appointed in 2015 after a division bench of the High Court ruled in their favour in 2014, with orders to provide them the opportunity to complete their basic training and be appointed in the posts. The petitioners then filed a writ petition, seeking recognition of their appointments from 2001 and claiming arrear salaries.
ALSO READ: 78-Year-Old Jagdish Prasad Kejriwal, Paralysed For 18 Years, Casts Vote
In the latest ruling, Justice Medhi observed that the petitioners were discharged from service through no fault of their own and that the High Court had interfered with the impugned decisions that led to their dismissal and subsequent denial of re-appointment. Thus, their request for appointment from the initial date of May 23, 2001, was upheld.
However, the court noted that the claim would only cover notional benefits, including fitment and pensioners benefits, and that back wages from 2001 could not be considered under the principle of "no work no pay."
