SGT CHAMAN LAL v.

UNION OF INDIA [2017] INSC 571 (25 July 2017)

FACTS

1. The appellant joined the Indian Air Force as an airman in Clerk General Duties trade on
12.10.1987. Then, he becomes sergeant by promotion in 1998. He was reported sick
several times at Air force hospital station. He was treated by Air force doctors of Base
hospital Delhi cantt. The Appellant got MRI scan for his right leg at Max medical centre
at his own expense on 26.08.2001 which revealed some abnormality with right tibia bone
which diagnosed as Osteomyelitis.
2. In 2001, he was advised to undergo chemotherapy and other treatments. He was then
referred to surgical oncologist who advised him to remove the right tibia bone and knee
joint, allegedly without conducting proper medical tests. After the surgery, he was
discharged from the hospital with low medical category with instructions to report after 3
months for knee replacement. On 03.06.2002, he was admitted for removal of cancerous
bone. But, the post-surgery oncopathologist’s report dated 11.06.2002 showed that there
was no evidence Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in the entire specimen so removed. The
appellant alleged that he suffered from permanent disability due to negligence of the
doctors which resulted in change of medical category BEE (P) to CEE (P) by the Medical
Board.
3. Therefore, the appellant filed the writ jurisdiction with bearing No. 3712/2003 in the High
court and praying for an enquiry against the doctors, to retain in service and grant him
promotion as usual or to compensate him for the damage at par with battle hostility. The
petition was disposed with the directions to the authority to consider the same
expeditiously. The appellant was granted extension of service up to 31st October 2013
and again for six years till 31st October 2019.
4. Then, the Appellant filed another petition writ petition before the High court praying for
enquiry to conduct investigation against and the doctors and grant him promotion
retrospectively w.e.f from 01.07.2007 to rank of junior warrant officer. However, the
High Court observed that most of the reliefs are already prayed in the previous writ and
therefore they are barred by the principle of res judicata. The division bench refused to
grant any relief.
5. The Appellant contended that he was entitled for promotion to rank of JWO in 2007.
However, he was denied because he was placed in the low medical category CEE(P)
A4G4(P). He also contended that it was in contravention of the sec 47 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
He was not considered for the post and was discriminated as two other officers namely
Air Commodore P. Chakraborty and Honorary Flying Officer P.K. Choudhury, who
suffered more percentage of disability than the appellant.
6. The appellant approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai by way
of Original Application No.60/2013. The tribunal dismissed the original application
preferred by the appellant. The Tribunal has held that the appellant was not eligible for
select promotion but only eligible for time bound promotion. Hence, the Tribunal
concluded that no relief can be granted to the appellant. The tribunal proceeded to
examine the argument of discrimination alleged by the appellant that Air Commodore P.
Chakraborty and Honorary Flying Officer P.K. Choudhury were treated differently.
However, they were placed in category A4G2 (P) and A4G3 (P) respectively; thus, they
can be considered for select promotion. The tribunal concluded that minimum medical
category requirement for select promotion is A4G3 (P) and that too through Condonation
Board. The appellant was working in Indian Air force and for which Section 47 of the Act
is not available.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Court by way of appeal. The appellant
now referred to another case of officer namely, D.K Thakur, Cryptographer who has been
assessed of 60% disability but still considered for promotion. However, indicates that he
has been placed in medical category A4G2. The court directed the medical board and two
doctors from the AIIMS to examine J.B Yadav and Chaman lal their functional disability
regarding their work.

MATTER IN ISSUE
 Whether there is discrimination in the award of Medical Category as persons having more
percentage of disabilities, were kept in higher medical category (promotable medical
category) and were given promotions than Appellant who would be retained in service till
February 2026?
 Whether Provisions of Section 47(1) & (2) of Persons with Disability Act 1995
reproduced under Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2016 are applicable to Appellant?
 CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

 The appellant contended that he is entitled to promotion as he was placed in promotion

panel 2007- 2008 and it was in contravention of the section 47 of the Act. He was
discriminated in the matter as two other officers who suffered from more disability were
granted promotion.
 The respondent contended that there was no medical negligence in the treatment of the
appellant or that he was wrongly categorised in the low medical category and also
reliance on sec 47 is misplaced. The respondent also contended that the reliefs prayed by
appellant is already rejected by the court.

JUDGEMENT

1. With regard to the first contention of the appellant regarding the discrimination, the court
has the same view as of the tribunal and rejected the same. During the hearing of the
application by the tribunal, the appellant also referred to the cases of other officers
namely Warrant officer Chandrashekhar, J.B Yadav and Cadet R.K Herojit Singh. The
relevant facts regarding the officers were duly examined by the tribunal and the court
didn’t find ant infirmity in the analysis. The officers have been placed in low medical
category other than A4G4 which are promotional categories. The person placed in A4G4
are not eligible for select promotion. The fact that the disability percentage of appellant is
less than the other officers doesn’t make any difference because the percentage of
disability is not the governing factor, but the relevant consideration is the categorisation
made by the medical board. The medical category is based on the employment and
functional capacity of the individual which is subjective in nature. The fact that the
appellant was listed for promotion doesn’t make him vested for any right.
2. With regard to the second contention of the appellant, the court observed that the
subsection of sec 47 has no application in the present case. Subsection has an enabling
provision in the form proviso. The proviso exempts any establishment from its
application, by issuing a notification in that behalf. The effect of the notification is to
exempt the establishment in which the appellant was in service. It is not the case that
appellant was listed for promotion prior to issuance of the notification. Thus, the
appellant cannot claim the benefit of the section 47. It is a well establishment principle
that mere empanelment in the list would not create any vested right.
3. As per the contention of the appellant, the mere fact that he is doing the same job for last
seven years cannot be the basis of the promotion. The appeals fails and the same is
dismissed with no order as to costs.

REFERNCES
 SGT CHAMAN LAL v. UNION OF INDIA [2017] INSC 571 (25 July 2017)
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189517801/
 https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sgt-chaman-lal-versus-
union-of-india-and-others