Background Facts

The respondent was selected for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force. He joined his duty on 11.01.2011 at Dayapur, Silchar and was sent to CRPF Training Centre for training. While undergoing training, he suffered injuries to both his knees and was hospitalized on several occasions. A Medical Board opined that he was not fit to undergo strenuous and rigorous physical training. Therefore, his service was terminated on 27.04.2015 under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs which was rejected. Thereafter, he approached the High Court by filing writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to consider his case.

The respondent appeared before the Departmental Rehabilitation Board, but his case for rehabilitation was rejected on the grounds that he had not completed basic training. He would not be able to take strenuous work, and had requested monetary compensation which was not permissible.

Aggrieved by the termination order and the rejection by the Departmental Rehabilitation Board, the respondent filed writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the respondent was a member of the Force entitled to benefits under the Rehabilitation Scheme and disability pension, and further that the termination was not sustainable.

Aggrieved, the appellants filed the intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.

It was argued by the appellants that the respondent was not entitled to any benefit under the Rehabilitation Scheme as he was not a member of the Force at the time of the accident but was only a trainee and had not completed his training. It was also contended that neither the training of the respondent was completed nor had the respondent taken the oath in terms of Rule 9 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.

It was further contended that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation, as the Scheme was intended for members of the Force and not for trainees. It was also argued that without taking the oath, the appointment of the respondent did not confer upon him any right to be reinstated in service.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that the Single Judge had rightly held that the respondent was a member of the Force, having been offered appointment by the Commandant and having been appointed in temporary capacity with a definite pay scale.

Findings and observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the respondent had been appointed to the post of Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF by the Commandant, 174 Bn. CRPF. Therefore, merely because the respondent was not administered the oath on account of non-completion of his basic training, he cannot be said to have lost the protection otherwise available to him as a member of the CRPF.

It was further observed that the respondent had not been declared physically unfit for continuance in service by the authority competent to do so. It was observed that the mere fact that the respondent did not complete his training and was not administered the oath, would not deny him the benefits.

It was held by the Division Bench that the termination of the respondent from service was not supported by any finding of an authority competent to declare him permanently incapacitated for service.

It was further observed that the respondent had not challenged the termination order, as he had prayed in the writ petition for reinstatement in service. It was held by the Bench that the absence of a specific challenge to the termination order would not come in the way in granting relief or to set aside the order of termination.

With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : The Union of India and Ors. v. Ex RTGD Mustaque Ahmed

Case No.: WA/410/2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : S.K Medhi

Counsel for the Respondent : M J Quadir, A K Hannan