Chandigarh: In a ruling with wider ramifications in disputes related to status of ex-Serviceman (ESM) for soldiers discharged from service, Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has made it clear that individuals discharged at their own request before completing the pensionable service period are still entitled to ESM status.The tribunal issued the order while directing authorities to reconsider the status of a former Army rifleman whose discharge classification led to the loss of his civilian job nearly 20 years later.The bench, comprising Justice Anil Kumar, judicial member, and Vice Admiral Atul Kumar Jain, administrative member, AFT, Lucknow, passed the order on an application by Rifleman Meghanand. He served in the Indian Army from July 1986 to July 1993. Following his discharge at his own request after seven years of service, he joined the Delhi Police in 1994 under the ESM quota.However, his employment was terminated in Feb 2014—two decades into his second career—after it was discovered that his Army discharge book categorised him as a “Non-Ex-Serviceman,” rendering him ineligible for the reserved post.Meghanand challenged the termination, citing the principle of parity. He argued that peers in nearly identical circumstances—specifically citing one Harish Kumar Yadav—had been granted ESM status and allowed to continue their service with the Delhi Police.His counsel argued that denying him this status violated the constitutional right to equality under Articles 14 and 16. They further cited a 2013 Delhi high court judgment which established that personnel discharged at their own request after sufficient service should not be excluded from the ESM definition.The Centre and Army authorities contested the plea, maintaining that Meghanand failed to meet the criteria established in a 1987 office memorandum. They argued that, as per these guidelines, those discharged voluntarily before reaching pensionable age do not qualify for ESM status, and therefore, his classification was recorded correctly.After reviewing the case, the tribunal observed inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled. It pointed out that authorities failed to justify why one individual was granted ex-serviceman status while another in nearly identical circumstances was denied.The bench also referred to multiple judicial precedents, including rulings by the Supreme Court and high courts, observing that arbitrary distinctions within the same class of former service personnel are not permissible.In its detailed order, the tribunal quashed the “Non Ex-Serviceman” endorsement in Meghanand’s discharge record and directed the authorities to reconsider his status within four months, ensuring parity with similar cases.
