Failure to complete training or take the oath does not defeat a CRPF member’s rehabilitation protection.

The respondent was appointed as Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF by appointment letter dated 10 July 2010 and joined service on 11 January 2011. During basic training, he suffered injuries to both knees and underwent prolonged treatment at various CRPF and government hospitals between December 2011 and August 2014.

A Medical Board subsequently opined that he was unfit for strenuous and rigorous physical training. His service was initially terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and the order was later amended to invoke Rule 6. His appeal was rejected on the ground that no appeal lay against termination on medical grounds.

In earlier writ proceedings, the High Court directed consideration of his case under Standing Order No. 04/2011 concerning rehabilitation of disabled CRPF personnel. The Departmental Rehabilitation Board rejected his claim on the grounds that he had not completed basic training, could not perform strenuous work, sought impermissible monetary compensation, and was unfit for any subsidiary role.

The respondent thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 4606/2020. The learned Single Judge held that he was a member of the Force, that his termination was legally unsustainable, and that the Rehabilitation Board had failed to properly apply Standing Order No. 04/2011. The matter was remitted to the authorities for a fresh, reasoned decision regarding the benefits available to him. The Union of India challenged that decision in the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the respondent could claim protection and rehabilitation benefits under Standing Order No. 04/2011 merely because he had not completed basic training or taken the oath prescribed under the CRPF Rules, 1955?

2. Whether the respondent’s termination was legally sustainable in the absence of a finding by a competent authority that he was permanently incapacitated or physically unfit for continuance in service?

3. Whether the absence of a specific challenge to the termination order barred the High Court from granting relief, including setting aside the termination and directing reconsideration of the respondent’s claim?

The Court applied the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, particularly Rules 5 and 6, governing termination of temporary employees and termination on grounds of physical unfitness.

It relied on Section 2(d) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and the CRPF Rules, 1955 to determine whether an appointed and allotted Constable could be treated as a member of the Force notwithstanding non-completion of training or non-administration of the oath.

Standing Order No. 04/2011, as amended, was applied as the governing rehabilitation framework for disabled personnel of the CRPF, requiring proper consideration of rehabilitation and alternative roles before denying benefits.

The Court also referred to the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 in relation to disability pension.

The appellants’ reliance on Mukul Saikia & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 747, concerning relief where the termination order was not specifically challenged, was held inapplicable because the respondent had sought reinstatement, which necessarily placed the termination order in issue.

The Court held that the respondent’s appointment to the post of Constable, enlistment, and allotment to a CRPF Battalion established his status as a member of the Force for the purposes of protective and rehabilitative benefits.

Non-completion of training and non-administration of the oath did not extinguish that protection, particularly since the respondent’s failure to complete training resulted from injuries suffered during training itself.

Although the Medical Board found him unfit for strenuous physical training, there was no finding by a competent authority that he was permanently incapacitated or physically unfit for continuance in service.

The Rehabilitation Board instead rejected his claim primarily on the basis of his inability to complete training and perform strenuous duties, without undertaking the requisite consideration under Standing Order No. 04/2011 of rehabilitation or alternative subsidiary work.

The Court further held that the prayer for reinstatement necessarily implied a challenge to the termination order; therefore, the absence of a separately worded prayer challenging termination did not prevent the Court from granting appropriate relief, and the principle in Mukul Saikia did not apply.

The Court affirmed the learned Single Judge’s finding that the respondent could not be denied consideration under Standing Order No. 04/2011 merely because he had not completed basic training or taken the oath, and that his termination was unsupported by a competent finding of permanent incapacity or physical unfitness for continuance in service.

The authorities were directed to reconsider the respondent’s entitlement to rehabilitation, disability pension, compensation, or other applicable benefits and to pass a speaking order in accordance with the findings of the judgment.

The exercise was directed to be completed within six weeks from service of the certified copy of the appellate order.