Army Rules, 1954, Rule 13 (3), Item III(iii) – Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 – Guidelines for Management and Prevention of HIV/AIDS Infection in the Armed Forces. 2003, Para 355(f) – Guidelines for Prevention and Control of HIV Infections in the Armed Forces, 1992 – Service Law – Discharge set aside –Ground that the appellant was HIV+ve – AIDS diagnosis was used to discharge the appellant from service–Held to be a case of wrong diagnosis and false alarm with imperilling consequences for the appellant – Appellant was diagnosed with neuro tuberculosis, which diagnosis was without examination by a neurologist whose opinion would seem to be elementary – The respondents have deliberately tried to cover up the wrong diagnosis in spite of the 2003Guidelines and the test reports of the appellant – The respondents had the opportunity from 2007 onwards to rectify and correct themselves after the order of the single Judge of the High Court dated 20th April, 2006 – The Medical Board, which was constituted upon the appellant availing the statutory remedy, arbitrarily, wrongly and deliberately vide order dated 20th October, 2009 rejected the appellant’s prayer on flimsy and wrong grounds by applying the 1992 Guidelines – Even disability pension was denied by categorising the appellant as suffering from AIDS, a self-inflicted condition – Appellant had submitted between the period of 2007 and2012, as many as four diagnostic reports, showing that his CD4 cell count was above 300 cells/mm3, as opposed to the respondents’ 2003 Guidelines defining an AIDS illness to be one where the CD4 cell count is below 200cells/mm3 – The dismissal of the appellant’s application by the DGAFMS can only be called perfunctory at best, since it did not take into account any of the material subsequently produced by the appellant – In terms of Para 6A, a person who has-been diagnosed as HIV+ve was expected to develop AIDS within 6-8 years, and thereafter, have a limited lifespan of only 1-2 years – Even going by the respondents’ own policy, the appellant could not be said to be suffering from AIDS since, in flagrant defiance of the policy assessment, the appellant is reportedly still alive after 23 years of his discharge and suffering from no serious ailment – In view of the extreme mental agony thus undergone by the appellant, in not only facing the apathetic attitude of the respondents 2 to 4 but in facing the concomitant social stigma and the looming large death scare that accompanied such a discharge from the armed forces, we deem it fit to award a lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh only)towards compensation on account of wrongful termination of services, leave encashment dues, non-reimbursement of medical expenses and the social stigma faced, to be paid by the respondents 2 – 4 to the appellant within eight weeks from the date of this judgment without fail. In addition to the above, the appellant shall be entitled to pension in accordance with law as if he had continued in service as Havaldar and on completion of the required years of service retired as such, without being invalided. (Para 7 to 10,15, 23 to 26)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 188 SC
[2024 INSC 236]
SATYANAND SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 1666 of 2015-Decided on 20-03-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-188-SC.pdf
