The Gauhati High Court affirmed that a temporary constable of the CRPF who suffers a disabling injury during training is to be treated as a member of the force for purposes of rehabilitation and disability pension, and that a termination order lacking a competent finding of permanent incapacity is legally untenable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Union of India and four other respondents (the appellants) challenged the order dated 27.04.2015 that terminated the service of Mustaque Ahmed, a Constable (General Duty) of the CRPF, on medical grounds. The respondent contended that despite not completing basic training or taking the oath, he was a member of the force and entitled to rehabilitation under Standing Order No. 04/2011 and to disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Key Facts
- 10.07.2010: Appointment letter issued by the Commandant, 147 Bn. CRPF, offering the post of Constable (General Duty).
- 11.01.2011: Respondent joined duty at Dayapur, Silchar and was sent to CRPF Training Centre, Neemuch for basic training.
- 22.12.2011: Injured knees; admitted to Composite Hospital, CRPF, Neemuch.
- 23.01.2012: Discharged from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi after further treatment.
- 26.03.2012: Medical fitness certificate issued; resumed duties at Neemuch.
- 08.06.2012 and 23.06.2012: Re-hospitalised for left-knee pain; referred to Safdarjung Hospital.
- 15.09.2012: Another fitness certificate issued; continued intermittent hospitalisations until 30.08.2014.
- 10.03.2015: Medical Board opined respondent not fit for strenuous training.
- 27.04.2015: Termination order issued under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5, Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
- 10.06.2015: Termination order amended to fall under Rule 6 of the 1965 Rules.
- Appeal to Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs under Sub-Rule (2)(a) of Rule 5 was dismissed, holding no provision for appeal against a medical-ground termination.
- 25.02.2020: Writ petition W.P.(C) 4498/2015 disposed; respondent directed to appear before the Departmental Rehabilitation Board under S.O.-04/2011.
- 07.07.2020: Respondent appeared before the Board.
- 14.09.2020: Rehabilitation Board rejected the claim for rehabilitation.
- 25.07.2024: Single Judge allowed the writ petition W.P.(C) 4606/2020, holding respondent a member of the force and entitled to disability pension.
- 25.08.2026: Intra-court appeal filed by the Union; this judgment delivered.
Procedural History
- 10.07.2010: Appointment letter issued.
- 11.01.2011: Commencement of service.
- 27.04.2015: Termination order under Rule 5.
- 10.06.2015: Amendment to Rule 6.
- Appeal to Secretary (date not specified) - dismissed.
- W.P.(C) 4498/2015 filed - disposed 25.02.2020; direction to approach Rehabilitation Board.
- 07.07.2020: Appearance before Rehabilitation Board.
- 14.09.2020: Board’s rejection order.
- W.P.(C) 4606/2020 filed - Single Judge order dated 25.07.2024 in respondent’s favour.
- Intra-court appeal (WA/410/2025) filed - judgment dated 25.08.2026.
Parties' Positions
- Appellants (Union of India & 4 Ors.): Assert that the respondent was merely a trainee, not a member of the CRPF; therefore, the termination under Rule 5 was valid and the Mukul Saikia ratio applies to bar any relief.
- Respondent (Mustaque Ahmed): Argues that the appointment letter made him a member of the force; he was entitled to rehabilitation and disability pension under S.O.-04/2011, the 1939 and 1972 Rules, and that the termination order lacked a competent finding of permanent incapacity.
Relief Sought
- Appellants: Set aside the Single Judge’s order, uphold the termination, and deny any pension or rehabilitation benefit.
- Respondent: Confirmation of disability pension, rehabilitation benefits, and a speaking order determining the quantum of compensation within a stipulated period.
The Legal Issue
Whether a person appointed as a temporary Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF, who did not complete basic training nor take the oath, can be treated as a member of the Force for the purposes of rehabilitation under Standing Order No. 04/2011 and entitlement to disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and whether the termination order under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is valid in the absence of a competent finding of permanent incapacity.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- Reliance on Mukul Saikia & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 747, asserting that a trainee who has not completed training cannot claim the benefits of a member.
- Emphasis on the language of Rule 5, 1965 Rules, contending that termination on medical grounds is final and not amenable to appeal.
- Argument that the respondent never took the oath prescribed under Rule 9 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, and therefore never acquired the status of a member.
- Submission that the Rehabilitation Board correctly rejected the claim because the respondent was not a “member of the Force” within the meaning of S.O.-04/2011.
For the Respondent
- Cites the appointment letter dated 10.07.2010 and the subsequent enlistment on 11.01.2011 as evidence of membership, invoking Section 2(d) of the CRPF Act, 1949.
- Points to the Single Judge’s finding that the respondent was appointed in a temporary capacity with a definite pay scale, satisfying the definition of a member under the 1965 Rules.
- Relies on the object of S.O.-04/2011, which is to rehabilitate disabled personnel of the Force, irrespective of training completion.
- Highlights that the termination order was not supported by any authority competent to declare permanent incapacity, violating procedural fairness and Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Distinguishes Mukul Saikia on the ground that the present case involves a disability incurred during service, not a pre-service condition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by interpreting Rule 5, Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and Rule 6. It held that termination under Rule 5 requires a finding by an authority competent to declare the employee permanently incapacitated. The termination order of 27.04.2015 was issued merely on medical grounds without such a finding; consequently, it was not legally sustainable.
The Court then examined Section 2(d) of the CRPF Act, 1949, concluding that the appointment letter and subsequent posting to a battalion conferred membership status, even though the respondent had not completed basic training or taken the oath. The Court observed that the oath is a ceremonial requirement and not a condition precedent to membership for the purposes of service-related benefits.
Turning to Standing Order No. 04/2011, the Court noted its purpose: rehabilitation of disabled personnel of the Force. It rejected the contention that the scheme is limited to fully trained members, emphasizing that the scheme’s language does not impose a training-completion condition. The Court quoted the Single Judge’s reasoning that the respondent “has been appointed to the post of Constable (General Duty) … therefore, merely because the respondent was not administered the oath … he cannot be said to have lost the protection otherwise available to him as a member of the CRPF.”
The Court distinguished Mukul Saikia on factual grounds. While Mukul Saikia dealt with a permanent disability arising before appointment, the present case involved a disability incurred during training, a circumstance that falls squarely within the protective ambit of S.O.-04/2011.
The Court also evaluated the Rehabilitation Board’s order of 14.09.2020, finding that the Board failed to exercise its statutory power because it did not determine whether the respondent was permanently incapacitated. The lack of such a determination rendered the Board’s rejection unsustainable.
"Thus, from the discussion made and reasons recorded hereinabove, the following conclusions can be made and directions(s) are issued:…"
Based on the above analysis, the Court affirmed the Single Judge’s conclusions: the respondent is a member of the Force, entitled to disability pension under the 1939 and 1972 Rules, and the termination order is set aside. The matter was relegated to the employer to pass a speaking order within a specified period.
The Verdict
The intra-court appeal filed by the Union of India and four others is dismissed. The termination order dated 27.04.2015 is set aside as it lacked a competent finding of permanent incapacity. The respondent is confirmed as a member of the CRPF for purposes of rehabilitation and disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The employer is directed to issue a speaking order determining the applicable benefit within six weeks of service of a certified copy of this judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Temporary Appointees Are Treated as Members
- An appointment letter and posting to a battalion confer membership even if basic training is incomplete.
- The oath under Rule 9, CRPF Rules, 1955 is not a prerequisite for claiming service-related benefits.
Termination Must Be Supported by a Competent Finding
- Under Rule 5, 1965 Rules, a termination on medical grounds is invalid unless an authority competent to declare permanent incapacity makes such a finding.
- Courts will scrutinise the procedural basis of termination orders and may set them aside for non-compliance.
Rehabilitation Scheme Applies to Injured Trainees
-
S.O.-04/2011 is intended to rehabilitate any disabled personnel of the Force, irrespective of training completion.
-
Rehabilitation Boards must make a substantive determination of permanent incapacity before rejecting a claim.
-
Practitioners should ensure that termination orders are accompanied by a competent medical assessment.
-
Claims for disability pension should cite the appointment letter and posting records as proof of membership.
-
When representing trainees, argue that the protective scheme is triggered by the occurrence of injury during service, not by completion of training.
