{"id":52335,"date":"1989-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989"},"modified":"2015-11-08T03:11:46","modified_gmt":"2015-11-07T21:41:46","slug":"lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989","title":{"rendered":"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 2071, \t\t 1989 SCC (3) 566<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLT. COLONEL K.D. GUPTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT31\/03\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 2071\t\t  1989 SCC  (3) 566\n JT 1989 (3)   283\t  1989 SCALE  (2)174\n\n\nACT:\n    Army Act, 1964: Defence Services--Promotion--Unlike other\ngovernment servants, requisite experience, consequent  expo-\nsure  and  appropriate\treview\tby  authorities,  indispens-\nable--Individual  capacity and special qualities--Basis\t for\nassessment--Lower  medical  categorisation--Effect   of\t for\npurposes   of  promotion--Grant\t of   compensation--Relevant\nfactors--Considerations thereof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The appellant has filed a contempt petition against\t the\nRespondents, alleging that the directions dated 20.4.1988 of\nthis Court, have not been complied with.\n    The Respondents were directed to reconsider the case  of\nthe  appellant for promotion on the basis that\this  medical\ncategory continues to be S-I from 1977, and that the medical\ncategory would be taken into account if the rules for promo-\ntion  so require; otherwise not. It was also  directed\tthat\nthe  consideration  of promotion would be  completed  within\nfour weeks; (See 1988(3) SCR 646).\n    On\tbehalf\tof the respondents, it was stated  that\t the\npromotional  entitlements of the petitioner had\t been  fina-\nlised as per the directions of the Court, after re-examining\nthe  petitioner's  case for promotion within  the  specified\ntime  and  since  there was no failure to  comply  with\t the\ndirections,  no\t contempt had been committed.  It  was\talso\nsubmitted  that the petitioner's medical categorisation\t has\nnothing to do with the refusal to promote him.\nDisposing of the petition,\n    HELD: 1. The judgment of this Court did clearly  proceed\non the footing that the lower medical categorisation  preju-\ndiced the petitioner in the matter of obtaining\t appropriate\npromotions.  For the first time, the respondents have  taken\nthe stand in the contempt proceeding that the lower categor-\nisation has nothing to do with the refusal to accord  promo-\ntion to the petitioner. The plea now advanced cannot  there-\nfore be accepted. [377E-F]\n371\n    2.\tThe .defence services have their  own  peculiarities\nand special requirements. The considerations which apply  to\nother government servants in the matter of promotion  cannot\nas a matter of course be applied to defence personnel of the\npetitioner's category and rank. Requisite experience, conse-\nquent  exposer and appropriate review are indispensable\t for\naccording promotion, and the petitioner, therefore cannot be\ngiven  promotions  as claimed by him on the basis  that\t his\nbatch-mates have earned such promotions. Individual capacity\nand special qualities on the basis of assessment have to  be\nfound but in the case of the petitioner these are not avail-\nable. [377G-H; 378A-B]\n    3.1\t As  regards compensation, the\tpetitioner  advanced\ntail claims by contending that he has suffered physical\t and\nmental torture, loss of reputation and of social  acceptance\nand  financial\tloss. What promotions the  petitioner  would\notherwise  have earned would be a matter of speculation\t and\ncannot be ascertained at this stage for lack of\t appropriate\ndecisive criteria. His grievance that he suffered in dignity\nand humiliation as a result of being looked down upon by his\nbatch-mates, friends and relatives, has perhaps been  suffi-\nciently\t met  by the appellate judgment which  has  declared\nthat  his lower medical categorisation was  unjustified\t and\nthe  petitioner continued to be Shape-I without\t break\tfrom\n1977. [368E-G]\n    3.2\t The  defence personnel have peculiar  incidence  of\nservice.  Life's course does not run smoothly for  everyone.\nSome relevant factors to be considered for award of  compen-\nsation are the duration of time for which the petitioner was\nsubjected to various medical checks and hospitalisation, and\nthe  consequent\t suffering which he underwent, the  loss  of\npromotional  prospects\tand the fact that he  would  now  be\nobliged to request to be released from service\tprematurely.\nA  total compensation of RS.4 lakhs would meet the  ends  of\njustice.  The petitioner would not be entitled to any  other\nclaim on these heads, but he would be entitled to all  other\nservice benefits which an officer of the Lt. Colonel's\trank\nwould be entitled to hold. [378G-H; 379A-B]\n    Major K.D. Gupta v. Union of India, [1984] 1 S.C.C.\t 153\nand  Lt.  Col. K.D. Gupta, v. Union of India,<\/a> [1988]  3\t SCR\n646. referred to.\n    This  Court\t directed that the amount of Rs.4  lakhs  be\npaid  to the petitioner within 2 months and  the  petitioner\nmay be released from the defence service in accordance\twith\nany  decision  that might be taken on his request  for\tsuch\nrelease. [379C-D]\n372\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition\t No.
\n20065 of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
In
\nCivil Appeal No. 1702 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  31.3.1987  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 5702 of 1985.
\nPetitioner-in-person.\n<\/p>\n
    G.\tRamaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, C.V.S.\t Rao
\nand A.K. Srivastava for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    RANGANATH  MISRA,  J. Petitioner, a Lt. Colonel  in\t the
\nIndian Army, has filed this application for taking  contempt
\nproceeding  against the respondents on the  allegation\tthat
\nthe  directions\t contained in the judgment  of\tthis  Court,
\ndated  20th  April, 1988, in Civil Appeal No. 1702  of\t1987
\nhave not been complied with. This Court in the Civil  Appeal
\nfound that the petitioner was entitled to a  reconsideration
\nof  his\t claim\tfor promotion on the basis  of\this  medical
\ncategorisation continuing as S-I and directed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “The appeal is allowed in part and to
\n\t      the extent that the appellant’s medical  cate-
\n\t      gory  shall be taken as being continued to  be
\n\t      S-I from 1977 and on that basis his promotion-
\n\t      al  entitlement  shall  be  finalised  by\t the
\n\t      respondents within three months hence.”
\n\t\t  After\t this Court’s decision, by a  letter
\n\t      dated  17th  of June,  1988,  the\t respondents
\n\t      informed\tthe  petitioner\t to  the   following
\n\t      effect:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       “In  this  connection,  I  have\tbeen
\n\t      directed to inform you that your case has been
\n\t      reexamined in the light of the judgment of the
\n\t      Supreme Court of India dated 20th April, 1988.
\n\t\t       It may kindly be recalled that acting
\n\t      rank of Lt. Col. was granted to you with\tyour
\n\t      original seniority based on the earlier direc-
\n\t      tions of the Hon’ble Court. Substantive
\n\t      373<\/span>
\n\t      rank of Lt. Col. was also granted to you along
\n\t      with  your  batch-mates.\tConsequent  to\t the
\n\t      Supreme  Court’s\tjudgment  dated\t th  August,
\n\t      1983,  your case for promotion to the rank  of
\n\t      A\/Colonel\t was considered on  three  occasions
\n\t      viz.,  July  86,\tApril 87,  November  87\t and
\n\t      rejected\ton all the three occasions based  on
\n\t      your  overall  performance and merit  of\tyour
\n\t      batch.  Your  medical category was  not  taken
\n\t      into consideration as per the laid down proce-
\n\t      dure.  Therefore, upgradation of your  medical
\n\t      category\tfrom Shape-2 to Shape-I by  the\t Su-
\n\t      preme  Court  vide  their\t orders\t dated\t20th
\n\t      April, 1988, does not warrant  reconsideration
\n\t      of your case for promotion because your  medi-
\n\t      cal  category had not affected your  case\t for
\n\t      promotion\t to  the rank of  A\/Colonel  on\t any
\n\t      occasion.\t You  failed to make the  grade\t for
\n\t      promotion\t not  on the basis of  your  medical
\n\t      category\tbut  on the basis  of  your  overall
\n\t      performance and merit of your batch
\n\t      ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  Upon notice in this miscellaneous proceed-
\n\t      ing a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of
\n\t      the respondents stating that the petition\t was
\n\t      misconceived  and he was not entitled  to\t any
\n\t      relief  as  claimed. It was  stated  that\t the
\n\t      promotional entitlements of the petitioner had
\n\t      been  finalised as per the directions of\tthis
\n\t      Court after reexamining the petitioner’s\tcase
\n\t      for promotion within the specified time and as
\n\t      there was no failure to comply with the direc-
\n\t      tions,  no  contempt had been  committed.\t The
\n\t      counter-affidavit proceeded to state:
\n\t\t\t“As  per  the  selection   procedure
\n\t      explained\t in the proceeding  paragraphs,\t the
\n\t      medical  category of Lt. Col. K.D.  Gupta\t was
\n\t      not  taken into cognizance. On receipt of\t the
\n\t      directions  of  the Supreme Court\t dated\t20th
\n\t      April, 1988, Lt. Cot. Gupta’s case for  promo-
\n\t      tion  was reexamined. Since the Hon’ble  Court
\n\t      had  given  no such directions to\t the  effect
\n\t      that  the\t case  of Lt. Col.  Gupta  shall  be
\n\t      placed before the Selection Board and has only
\n\t      directed\tthat  the  petitioner’s\t promotional
\n\t      entitlements  be\tfinalised  in  view  of\t his
\n\t      continued\t medical category in  Shape-I  since
\n\t      1977,  his case was reexamined  and  finalised
\n\t      and  the\tsame was intimated to him  vide\t our
\n\t      letter dated 17th June, 1988”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  The record of consideration for  promotion
\n\t      of the petitioner at the various stages by the
\n\t      Board  was directed to be produced before\t the
\n\t      Court. In a further affidavit on behalf of the
\n\t      respondents, Col. Bharucha stated that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      374<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t       “By  letter  dated  26.5.  1988,\t the
\n\t      Military Secretary observed as under:
\n\t      The Officer was considered by No. 3  Selection
\n\t      Board  for  promotion to the  acting  rank  of
\n\t      Colonel and awarded the following:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a) ‘R’ (Unfit) in July 1986 with ACR 84\/85\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)  ‘R’ (Unfit) in April, 1987 with ACR\t6\/85
\n\t      to 2\/86.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)  ‘R’\t(Unfit) in November, 1987  with\t ACR
\n\t      6\/86 to 5\/87
\n\t      The  Officer has been finally  superseded\t for
\n\t      promotion to the rank of acting Colonel  based
\n\t      on his overall profile and his medical catego-
\n\t      ry was not taken into account during the above
\n\t      three considerations. However, the officer has
\n\t      been  granted  the  substantive  rank  of\t Lt.
\n\t      Colonel  w.e.f. 01 August, 1979  vide  Gazette
\n\t      Notification No. 1774\/87 dated 19th September,
\n\t      1987.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Therefore,  no further action is\trequired  by
\n\t      the department in pursuance of the judgment of
\n\t      this Hon’ble Court dated 20.4.1988.”
\n\t\t       “I  state  that\tthe  petitioner\t had
\n\t      addressed\t  a  demi  official   letter   dated
\n\t      02.5.1988\t to the Chief of Army Staff in\tthis
\n\t      regard. The Chief of Army Staff called for the
\n\t      details of the case of the petitioner and\t the
\n\t      same  were  placed before the  Chief  of\tArmy
\n\t      Staff  on 03.6.1988. The Chief of\t Army  Staff
\n\t      after  considering  the note put\tup  to\thim,
\n\t      directed the office to intimate the petitioner
\n\t      accordingly.  By letter dated  17.6.1983,\t the
\n\t      office has informed the petitioner, a copy  of
\n\t      which is enclosed herewith. It is,  therefore,
\n\t      humbly  submitted that the case of  the  peti-
\n\t      tioner  was considered after the\tjudgment  of
\n\t      this  Hon’ble Court dated 20th April, 1988  by
\n\t      the  Military  Secretary of the  rank  of\t Lt.
\n\t      General and it was found that it is not neces-
\n\t      sary to send him for selection board as he was
\n\t      already  found unfit without reference to\t his
\n\t      medical certificate Shape-II”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      375<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      On 24th of January, 1989, this Court made\t the
\n\t      following order:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       “After\tcarefully  considering\t the
\n\t      matter, we direct the respondents to reconsid-
\n\t      er the case of the appellant for promotion  on
\n\t      the basis that his medical category  continues
\n\t      to be S-I from 1977. The medical category will
\n\t      be taken into account if the rules for  promo-
\n\t      tion so require, otherwise not. The considera-
\n\t      tion  of\tpromotion will be  completed  within
\n\t      four weeks from today  ……  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      We  have been informed that  the\tpetitioner’s
\n\t      case was considered on the basis of record and
\n\t      he was not found fit for any promotion.
\n\t\t  It  is  relevant to notice at\t this  stage
\n\t      that the petitioner had come before this Court
\n\t      on an earlier occasion by filing writ petition
\n\t      No.  5302\t of 1980 which was  disposed  of  on
\n\t      August  10, 1983 (1984 1 SCC 153). This  Court
\n\t      in its judgment indicated:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Shri  Abdul Khader, learned counsel  for\t the
\n\t      respondents explained to us that the petition-
\n\t      er  had been reverted from the rank of  Acting
\n\t      Lt. Colonel to Major for three reasons:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(i) Reduction in rank had to  follow
\n\t      as  a  matter of course on  placement  of\t the
\n\t      petitioner in a lower medical category;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(ii) After the latest medical exami-
\n\t      nation  in  1978, he was not  eligible  to  be
\n\t      considered  for  promotion for one  year;\t his
\n\t      earlier  reduction  in  rank  was,  therefore,
\n\t      justified; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(iii)  He performed no duty for\t six
\n\t      months from March 22, 1976 when he was  admit-
\n\t      ted  in the hospital and under the  rules,  he
\n\t      stood automatically reduced in rank.
\n\t\t\tWe  find no substance in any of\t the
\n\t      reasons  mentioned by Shri Abdul Khader.\tShri
\n\t      Khader was unable to draw our attention to any
\n\t      rule, order or circular which prescribed\tthat
\n\t      reduction in rank should inevitably follow  on
\n\t      placement\t of  an officer in a  lower  medical
\n\t      category.\t In  fact it was  conceded  by\tShri
\n\t      Khader that an officer whose medical classifi-
\n\t      cation  is downgraded, will not be reduced  in
\n\t      rank  on\tthat account, but will\tcontinue  to
\n\t      hold the same rank as
\n\t      376<\/span>
\n\t      before.  We are, therefore, unable  to  under-
\n\t      stand why the petitioner had to be reduced  in
\n\t      rank because subsequent to his promotion,\t his
\n\t      medical  classification  was  downgraded.\t The
\n\t      second  reason given by Shri Khader  that\t the
\n\t      petitioner would not be eligible to be promot-
\n\t      ed for a year after the latest medical  exami-
\n\t      nation  and, therefore, his earlier  reduction
\n\t      in rank was justified, is only to be stated as
\n\t      rejected. When the petitioner was promoted, he
\n\t      satisfied all the requirements including\tthat
\n\t      of medical categorisation, if any.. We find it
\n\t      impossible to agree with the proposition\tthat
\n\t      since  he would be ineligible to\tbe  promoted
\n\t      today, he could not have been promoted yester-
\n\t      day  when he satisfied all  the  requirements.
\n\t      The  reason really pressed before us  was\t the
\n\t      third reason, namely, that the petitioner\t had
\n\t      not  performed  any duty for six\tmonths\tand,
\n\t      therefore,  he  had to be reduced in  rank  in
\n\t      accordance  with paragraph 5 of  Special\tArmy
\n\t      Instruction No. 1 dated January 9, 1974. We do
\n\t      not  propose to examine the  question  whether
\n\t      Special  Army Instruction No. 1  authorises  a
\n\t      reduction in rank for failure to rejoin duties
\n\t      for more than six months since that appears to
\n\t      be the case of the petitioner also.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The counter-affidavit filed m the writ petition and\t the
\nsubmissions  of\t counsel  advanced at  the  hearing  thereof
\nclearly indicate that the medical category of the petitioner
\nwas connected with his entitlement to promotion. In fact  in
\nthe civil appeal itself the petitioner’s claim for promotion
\nto  higher  ranks, keeping the promotions  accorded  to\t his
\nbatch-mates  in\t view, was challenged on the  basis  of\t the
\npetitioner’s lower medical category. In the affidavits filed
\nin  the\t civil appeal the respondents never took  the  stand
\nthat  entitlement to promotion as claimed by the  petitioner
\nhad  nothing to do with the state of his healthphysical\t and
\nmental.\t If  that stand had been adopted, this\tCourt  would
\ncertainly have gone into that question before directing\t the
\npetitioner’s  case  to be reexamined by a Special  Board  of
\nPsychiatrists, on the basis of whose report, the  petitioner
\nwas allowed to be continued in shape-I from 1977 without any
\nbreak.\tIt  is not disputed that the petitioner had  in\t the
\nsecond round of the litigation mainly pressed for his promo-
\ntion  by  contending  that his\tmedical\t categorisation\t was
\nvitiated. Counsel for the respondents at no stage during the
\nhearing of the appeal advanced the contention that the claim
\nfor  promotion\twas not, in any manner, connected  with\t the
\nmedical\t category of the petitioner. That is why this  Court
\nin its judgment stated:\n<\/p>\n
377<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t       ”   …..  on the basis\tof  material
\n\t      available on the record which had been  partly
\n\t      dealt with by this Court on the earlier  occa-
\n\t      sion while disposing of the writ petition, and
\n\t      what  we\thave now found on the basis  of\t the
\n\t      result  of  examination by  the  Committee  of
\n\t      Experts  the appellant has become entitled  to
\n\t      limited  relief.\tThough there  was  no  order
\n\t      reducing\thim  from  the rank  of\t acting\t Lt.
\n\t      Colonel to Major, he was treated to have\tbeen
\n\t      so reduced. Then followed the frequent psychi-
\n\t      atric examinations without any real justifica-
\n\t      tion. These have constituted the foundation of
\n\t      the  appellant’s grievance. His  recategorisa-
\n\t      tion as S-II in 1978, in these  circumstances,
\n\t      was  without justification. He is,  therefore,
\n\t      entitled to a reconsideration of his claim for
\n\t      promotion on the basis of his medical categor-
\n\t      isation continuing as S-I.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       “The appellant, inter alia, has asked
\n\t      for entitlement to promotion in view of promo-
\n\t      tions  earned  by his batchmates.\t We  do\t not
\n\t      think  that  would be a safe guide but  we  do
\n\t      hope  and\t trust that  the  respondents  would
\n\t      consider\this case for promotion with an\topen
\n\t      mind on the basis of his continuity in  Shape-
\n\t      I.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The judgment of this Court did clearly proceed on the  foot-
\ning  that  the lower medical categorisation  prejudiced\t the
\npetitioner  in\tthe matter of obtaining\t appropriate  promo-
\ntions.\tFor the first time, the respondents have  taken\t the
\nstand in the contempt proceeding that the lower\t categorisa-
\ntion has nothing to do with the refusal to accord  promotion
\nto the petitioner. In the circumstances indicated above, the
\nplea now advanced cannot be accepted. In fact, Mr.  Ramaswa-
\nmy, Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respond-
\nents  being cognizant of this situation stated to us  during
\nthe  hearing  of this application that\tthe  petitioner\t has
\njustification to feel aggrieved.\n<\/p>\n
    The respondents have maintained that the petitioner\t has
\nnot  served  in\t the appropriate grades\t for  the  requisite
\nperiod\tand has not possessed the necessary  experience\t and
\ntraining and consequential assessment of ability which are a
\nprecondition for promotion. The defence services have  their
\nown  peculiarities and special requirements. The  considera-
\ntions which apply to other government servants in the matter
\nof  promotion  cannot as a matter of  course  be.applied  to
\ndefence\t personnel  of the petitioner’s category  and  rank.
\nRequisite  experience,\tconsequent exposer  and\t appropriate
\nreview are indispensable for
\n378<\/span>
\naccording promotion and the petitioner, therefore, cannot be
\ngiven  promotions  as claimed by him on the basis  that\t his
\nbatch-mates have earned such promotions. Individual capacity
\nand special qualities on the basis of assessment have to  be
\nfound but in the case of the petitioner these are not avail-
\nable.  We find force in the stand of the respondents and  do
\nnot accept the petitioner’s contention that he can be grant-
\ned promotion to the higher ranks as claimed by him by adopt-
\ning the promotions obtained by his batch-mates as the  meas-
\nure.\n<\/p>\n
\t      In the appellate judgment, this Court said:
\n\t\t\t“He has also indicated in  paragraph
\n\t      8\t of that petition that he is prepared to  be
\n\t      released\tfrom service after  his\t promotional
\n\t      entitlements  are finalised and is  given\t his
\n\t      dues  on such basis as may be determined.\t The
\n\t      appellant\t has claimed compensation  which  we
\n\t      see no basis to grant”.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner also told us in course of the hearing of this
\ncase  that even if he is not accorded promotions as  claimed
\nby him, he should suitably be compensated and thereafter  he
\nshould\tbe released from the Army on the basis of  voluntary
\nretirement.  The  respondents have also indicated  that\t his
\nretirement is being processed separately.
\n    The\t question  for consideration now is as\tto  how\t the
\npetitioner  has\t to be compensated and what  should  be\t its
\nmeasure. The petitioner has, of course, advanced tall claims
\nby  contending\tthat  he has suffered  physical\t and  mental
\ntorture,  loss\tof reputation and of social  acceptance\t and
\nfinancial loss. What promotions the petitioner would  other-
\nwise have earned would be a matter of speculation and cannot
\nbe ascertained at this stage. for lack of appropriate  deci-
\nsive criteria. His grievance that he suffered in dignity and
\nhumiliation  as\t a result of being looked down upon  by\t his
\nbatch-mates,  friends and relatives has perhaps been  suffi-
\nciently\t met  by the appellate judgment which  has  declared
\nthat  his lower medical categorisation was  unjustified\t and
\nthe  petitioner continued to be Shape-I without\t break\tfrom
\n1977.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t defence personnel have peculiar incidence of  serv-
\nice.  Life’s course does not run smoothly for  everyone.  In
\nthe  present  proceeding which is for contempt,\t we  do\t not
\nthink  that  we can award compensation under every  head  of
\nclaim.\tSome  of factors relevant for such purpose  are\t the
\nduration  of time for which the petitioner was subjected  to
\nvarious\t medical checks and hospitalisation, and the  conse-
\nquent suffering which he underwent, the loss of\t promotional
\nprospects
\n379<\/span>
\nand  the fact that he would now be obliged to request to  be
\nreleased from service pre-maturely. We are of the view\tthat
\na  total compensation of Rs. four lakhs would meet the\tends
\nof  justice. This would obviously mean that  the  petitioner
\nwould not be entitled to any other claim on these heads\t but
\nwe  make  it clear that he would be entitled  to  all  other
\nservice benefits which an officer of the Lt. Colonel’s rank,
\nwhich the petitioner admittedly holds, would be entitled to.
\nThis judgment should serve the petitioner in vindication  of
\nhis  stand  and to dispel clouds cast on  his  physical\t and
\nmental\thealth by the purported lower medical  characterisa-
\ntion and obviously in the event of his being considered\t for
\nreemployment  after  retirement\t his  suitability  would  be
\nconsidered  on\tthe  basis of his service  records  and\t the
\njudgment of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tdirect that the amount of Rs. four lakhs be paid  to
\nthe  petitioner within two months and the petitioner may  be
\nreleased  from\tthe defence service m  accordance  with\t any
\ndecision that may be taken on his request for such release.
\n    The contempt proceeding is disposed of with these direc-
\ntions and no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t\t      Petition\tdis-\nposed of.\n380<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 2071, 1989 SCC (3) 566 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: LT. COLONEL K.D. GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT31\/03\/1989 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH DUTT, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-07T21:41:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-07T21:41:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989\"},\"wordCount\":2739,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989\",\"name\":\"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-07T21:41:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-07T21:41:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989","datePublished":"1989-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-07T21:41:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989"},"wordCount":2739,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989","name":"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-07T21:41:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-colonel-k-d-gupta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-31-march-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52335","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}