JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - The petitioner commissioned as Second Lieutenant in 1958 rose to the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel to which he was promoted with effect from February 27, 1975. Upon examination by the specialists the petitioner was downgraded on August 13, 1976 from SHAPE-S. 1 to SHAPE-S. 3. SHAPE-S. 1 denotes fit for all duties anywhere. SHAPE-S. 3 is denotative of fit for routine duties under supervision in areas where hospital with psychiatric facilities exist hereby not fit for duties at high altitudes. Under order dated November 16, 1976, the petitioner was transferred to a post which could be had by higher officer of the rank of Major. The petitioner filed Writ petition No. 5302 of 1980 under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, which was decided on August 10, 1983. The Supreme Court held that the reduction of the petitioners rank by order dated November 16, 1976, from Acting Lieutenant Colonel to Major was bad. The reasons put forward in defence to this reduction in rank were repelled. It was observed that there is no rule, order or circular, which prescribes that reduction in rank should inevitably follow on placement of an officer in a lower medical category. In case the petitioner satisfied the requirements including that of medical categorisation when he was promoted, it may not be said that he could not have been promoted since due to medical categorisation or otherwise he does not satisfy the requirements for the promotion later in point of time. It was not made out, the Supreme Court also pointed, that the petitioner had not been on duty for six months. The operative part of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under :- "As stated by us earlier, we find no substance in any one of the three reasons mentioned by Shri Abdul Khader on behalf of the respondents for the reversion of the petitioner from the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel to Major. The revision or reduction in rank cannot be justified and it is accordingly quashed. The petitioner is directed to be restored to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel with effect from the date he was reverted and stripped of the badges indicating his rank. The revision or reduction in rank cannot be justified and it is accordingly quashed. The petitioner is directed to be restored to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel with effect from the date he was reverted and stripped of the badges indicating his rank. As a result of the restoration of the rank of the Acting Lieutenant Colonel to the petitioner, other consequence, such as, consideration of the petitioners further claims to advancement, pay. arrears of pay, etc. Will have to be considered by the authorities and it is directed that these claims may be considered and disposed of within a period of six months from today. The petitioner will submit all his claims to the appropriate authorities within a period of one month from today." 2. Claim was preferred by the petitioner to the authorities on September 5, 1983 (vide Annexure-II to the writ petition). By order dated October 5, 1983, he was restored to the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel. 3. Under Army order dated December 10, 1976, the petitioners medical categorisation had been up granted to SHAPE-S 2. On Second Medical Review held on September 2, It - 77 he was upgraded to SHAPE-S 1. Army Hq. under order dated October 12, 1978/November 27, 1978 directed special review on the ground that the review, which took place on September 2, 1977, had not taken into account the episode of 1963. Upon special review the petitioner was downgraded permanently in medical categorisation to SHAPE-S. 2 on December 6, 1978 For periodical review the Army Hq. directed on November 29, 1983 that the petitioner be placed in the Military Hospital, Varanasi. Opinion was obtained of Senior Adviser (Psychiatric) Command Hospital. Lucknow, dated January 7, 1984. On the basis there of the petitioner was subjected to re categorisation Medical Board held on January 11,1984, at the Military Hospital, Varanasi. The petitioner was again placed permanently in the category of SHAPE-S. 2. Against this the petitioner lodged a complaint to the Central Government as envisaged under Section 27 of the Army Act dated March 2, 1984. 4. Under letter dated February 13, 1984, from the Army Hq the petitioner was intimated that his case for promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel was placed before the Selection Board along with other officers of his batch. 4. Under letter dated February 13, 1984, from the Army Hq the petitioner was intimated that his case for promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel was placed before the Selection Board along with other officers of his batch. The Board graded the petitioner as defer meaning thereby that the promotion was deferred to be re-Assessed on receipt of requisite reports from command appointment. Against this the petitioner made a representation dated February 22, 1984. The reply given to the petitioner to this representation on May 14, 1984, was that the petitioner had earned only one month report so far. He had to earn seventeen months report more before he could be awarded a definite grading for promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel. The petitioner was upon non criteria appointment; the eligible officers in low medical categorisation assessed tit for promotion by the selection Board have to be re-Assessed with regard to physical disability vis-a-vis promotion by the appropriate normal Selection Board. It was further intimated that since the petitioner is in medical SHAPE-S 2 (permanent), he was not eligible for further promotion by selection (vide Army Hq. letter No. 03974/1 M/MS 58 dated May 6, 1983. 5. Meanwhile on April 10, 1981, the petitioner moved Civil Misc. Petitions Nos. 20063 and 20264 of 1984 in the Supreme Court alleging contempt of Court and also seeking directions against the respondents for disposal of various claims made by the petitioner on September 5, 1983 (vide Annexure 11 to the writ petition). Upon these petitions the interim order made by the Supreme Court on August 3, 1984, was :- "Both the matters are adjourned to 7-6-1984. In the meanwhile the respondents are directed to bring a cheque for Rs, 25,000 (or payment to the petitioner subject to adjustment." 6 These petitions were disposed of finally by the Supreme Court on October 29, 1984, with the observation : "A cheque in the amount of Rs. 12,000 and odd was given on behalf of the Union of India to the petitioner. The petitioner admits that in all Rs. 25,000 has been paid to him. Nothing more remains to be done. OMPs are disposed of." 7. 12,000 and odd was given on behalf of the Union of India to the petitioner. The petitioner admits that in all Rs. 25,000 has been paid to him. Nothing more remains to be done. OMPs are disposed of." 7. The petition now before us was moved by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution on May 3, 1985, wherein the reliefs sought by him are as under; (a) Quish the proceedings of Medical Board dated 11 January, 1984 in respect of the petitioner and direct that the petitioner be treated as being in medical category SHAPE-1 for all purposes since 02 September, 1977. (b) Direct the respondents to forthwith employ the petitioner in an appropriate command criteria appointment in keeping with his entitlement for such employment. (c) Declare the proceedings of No. 3 Selection Board (Army) grading the petitioner as DEFER for promotion to Acting Colonel as bad and ultra vires of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated in August, 1983 (Annexure-I). (d) Direct the respondents to unconditionally grant to the petitioners the following of the claims vide Annexure-II : (1) Advancement of Acting Brigadier in equality with his batchmates since so promoted. (2) Arrears of pay for the above said rank from the date of his batch mates promotion to that rank in accordance with the approved sequence. (3) Permissible extension of service in prospective rank of the petitioner prior to the date of his superannuation/retirement from the service. (h) Declare that the petitioner has valid cause of action in the surrounding circumstances of the case to claim damages/compensation from the respondents for their acts amounting to defamation and mental anguish to him, i.e., through baseless reversion in rank and uncalled for psychiatric stigmatisation. (j) Issue any other writ, order or direction to meet the ends of justice. 8. Since the complaint made by the petitioner to the Central Government under Section 27 of the Army Act on March 2, 1984, referred to above, had not been disposed of, this Court directed the Central Government by interim order passed on October 16, 1985 to consider and dispose it of within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. At the instance of Central Government there was Review Medical Board convened at Armed Forces Military College, Pune, dated December 19, 1985, keeping in view of the provisions contained in paragraph 475 of the Regulations for Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 1962, to assess the medical categorisation of the petitioner afresh. The Board placed the petitioner in medical category SHAPE-S 2 (permanent) with effect from December 19, 1985, subject to approval by higher authorities and the higher authorities also approved the same (vide Annexure XVI to the writ petition). 9. The petitioners applied for amendment in the writ petition assailing this medical categorisation dated December 19,1985. So that the controversy be fully and finally adjudicated we allowed the amendment to be incorporated in the writ petition on September 19, 1986. The petitioner has prayed, in substance, through this that the categorisation dated December 19, 1985, to SHAPE-S 2 be quashed. 10. For the sake of greater clarity and that unnecessary prolixity be avoided we directed the parties, after the exchange of their affidavits, that they, but their arguments in writing. The petitioner, appearing in person, did this; counter arguments were filed for the respondents, to which the petitioner has put in rejoinder arguments. The petitioner and also counsel appearing for the respondents stated before us on March 23, 1987, that they has no more arguments to advance in the matter. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides. 12. The submission made for the respondents at the out-set is that the claim raised by the petitioner in this petition is barred by res-judicata. This the petitioner, of course, seeks to rebut In Writ Petition No. 5302 of 1980 decided by the Supreme Court on August 10, 1983, it was found that the revision of the petitioner to the rank to Major from that of Acting Lieutenant Colonel dated November 16, 1976 was bad and this was accordingly set aside. The Supreme Court further observed : "As a result of the restoration of the rank of the Acting Lieutenant Colonel to the petitioner, other consequence, such as, consideration of the petitioners further claims to advancement, pay, a nears if pay, etc., will have to be considered by the authorises and it is directed that these claims may be considered and disposed of within a period of six months from today. The petitioner will submit all his claims to the appropriate authorities within a period of one month from today." 13. This means in other words that the petitioner become entitled to other benefits of service on assumption as if he had continued is Acting Lieutenant Colonel and not been reverted to the rank of the Major. Ever since November 16, 1976, the petitioner has not been the Acting Lieutenant Colonel but by virtue of the reduction in rank being quashed it is to be deemed as if he had been holding this rank throughout the relevant period. The words "such as" and "etc." appearing in the portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court, extracted above, are suggestive that the benefits specifically referred to there in are illustrative in nature. The petitioner, as mentioned, above, preferred claim dated September 5, 1983, where after by order dated October 5, 1983, he was reduced to the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel. Since, according to the petitioner, he had not been accorded other benefits, as per decision of the Supreme Court, he filed the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 20063 and 20064 of 1984 dated April 10, 1984. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition before is the petitioner avers that in those petitions besides seeking contempt proceedings against the respondents for their act of ignoring the Supreme Courts judgment dated August 10, 1983 in fact the petitioner placed for the Courts direction in disposal of the various claims made by his (vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition dated September 9, 1983). Pending these civil miscellaneous petitions the Supreme Court made an interim order dated August 1, 1984, that Rs. 25,000 be paid to the petitioner. The words "subject to adjustment" appearing in this order, quoted above, suggest that this payment was to be adjusted against such amount as the Supreme Court may finally decide to award to the petitioner upon these miscellaneous petitions being finally disposed of. The final decision came on October 29, 1983, where - under the sum of Rs. 25,000 was acknowledged as paid to him by the petitioner and significantly the Supreme Court laid down "Nothing more remains to be done." 14. The final decision came on October 29, 1983, where - under the sum of Rs. 25,000 was acknowledged as paid to him by the petitioner and significantly the Supreme Court laid down "Nothing more remains to be done." 14. Considered in the proper prospective we find merit in the contention raised for the respondents to the effect that this puts a seal in so far as the claim of the petitioner based upon the decision of the Supreme Court dated August 10, 1983, is concerned. The petitioner was admittedly restored to the rank of the Acting Lieutenant Colonel the differential in pay and allowance for the intervening period quantified at Rs. 25,000 was duly paid to him and the Supreme Court settled that there was nothing more to be done in this behalf. The petitioner had, as mentioned above, sought direction of the Supreme Court in these petitions with respect to the claim, which he made on various counts dated September 5, 1983. The direction, which the Supreme Court gave, was for payment of the sum of Rs. 2 5,000 to the petitioner, which was done and nothing further was stated as being required to be done in order that the decision dated August 10, 1983, might be complied with. The chapter, which beg ain with the reversion of the petitioner to the rank of the Major on November 16, 1976 was thus brought to a close on October 29, 1984. It is difficult to subscribe to the proposition that this pertained merely to the disbursement of the pay and allowances for the intervening period to the petitioner and did not also cover the advancement etc., which the Supreme Court referred to in its judgment dated August 10, 1983. 15. The question arising, however, is whether there is a new cause of action accruing in favour of the petitioner subsequent to October 29, 1984, Grievance raised by the petitioner in pursuance of the amendment made by him to the writ petition is directed against the categorisation by the Medical Board on December 19, 1985, to SHAPE-S 2. Before we probe into this, it is opposite to taken into account the significance of SHAPE-S 1 and S. 2 respectively. Before we probe into this, it is opposite to taken into account the significance of SHAPE-S 1 and S. 2 respectively. This is elucidated in the Army Order 43/78 appended as Annexure VIII to the writ petition and reads as follows (a) 's' Factor (psychological) - This factor denotes psychological aspect and covers personality, mental acquits, emotional stably and psychiatric diseases Numerical Grading Functional Capacity Employability Limitations S - 1 Can withstand service mental stress. They have fully recovered from a psychological condition with no likelihood of further breakdown. Fit for all duties anywhere S - 2 Can withstand moderate stress. Had suffered from psychonetres is now fully established. Likelihood of break down under severe mental stress cannot be ruled out Fit for all duties in peace or filed area anywhere except at high altitude and combat during active hostilities including counter insurgency. Not fit for independent command at isolated location. 16. The petitioner admits in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, making a reference to the Army Hq. letter dated October 10, 1977, that an officer in category lower than SHAPE-S. 1 cannot at all be granted the selection grade rank of Lieutenant Colonel. This we find stated also in the counter affidavit and a reference to Army Hq. letter dated May 6, 1983, in this respect is also found made in Annexure-VII to the writ petition, which reads "Since the officer is in medical S. 2 (Permanent), he is not eligible for further promotion by selection." 17. Contention raised by the petitioner, inter alia, is that the decision of the Supreme Court dated August 10, 1983, placed him in an exclusive class implying thereby, according to the petitioner, that he became immune of medical review and that the categorisation dated December 6, 1978, it is urged, having been held as bad by the Supreme Court, there could be no further medical categorisation on the footing thereof. The submission, we find, suffers from basic fallacy. It is not correct to say that the Supreme Court held the medical categorisation in relation to the petitioner as bad. It is also not right to submit that the petitioner was made immune of the requisite categorisation on medical grounds in subsequent years for the purposes of eligibility to promotion. The submission, we find, suffers from basic fallacy. It is not correct to say that the Supreme Court held the medical categorisation in relation to the petitioner as bad. It is also not right to submit that the petitioner was made immune of the requisite categorisation on medical grounds in subsequent years for the purposes of eligibility to promotion. Considerable emphasis has been laid by the petitioner in his arguments to the following portion of the Supreme Courts decision : "..............the Army Headquarters by their letters dated October 12, 1978 and November 27, 1978 directed that the petitioner should be sent to Military Hospital, Pune on sick transfer for examination by Consultant (Psychiatry). The reason suggested for the fresh medical examination was that at the time when the petitioner was upgraded to S.1 category, an earlier episode of 1963 had not been taken into account. After medical examination, the petitioner was this time permanently downgraded to S. 2. According to the petitioner, this was done entirely without any basis and that even the clinical reports would reveal that the petitioner was perfectly fit. We do not desire to go into these claims of the petitioner since we are satisfied on the material placed before us that even the very reduction of the petitioners rank in 1976 from Acting Lieutenant Colonel to Major was bad." 18. From this it would be manifest that the Supreme Court did not nullify the medical categorisation in respect of the petitioner. The ratio instead is that the downgrading in the categorisation could not in itself from the basis for the reduction in rank. Nothing contained in the judgment is indicative as to the categorisation dated December 6, 1978 or August 13, 1976 for that matter having been found to be irregular. Nor is there any indication to the effect that in the matter of advancement the categorisation was not to be got done or that the same was not to be taken into account. In matters of promotion or posting to military assignments the part which the psychiatric examination of the officer play cannot be over emphasised. Nor is there any indication to the effect that in the matter of advancement the categorisation was not to be got done or that the same was not to be taken into account. In matters of promotion or posting to military assignments the part which the psychiatric examination of the officer play cannot be over emphasised. The decision, no doubt, contemplates that the authorities consider the question of promotion of the petitioner to higher ranks on assumption as if he had continued as Acting Lieutenant Colonel throughout ever since November 16, 1976, but without meaning thereby that this be done otherwise than in conformity with the rules observed on the subject. It is the consideration for the purposes of promotion, if any, which was to be kept in mind Gurdayal Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab and others, 1982(1) SCR 904 , and upon the facts narrated above the petitioner may not maintain legitimately that there is no,consideration made of his case for promotion to ranks higher than those of the Acting Lieutenant Colonel. In terms of the Army Order 43/78, referred to above, an officer is invariably required to undergo medical categorisation. For an officer placed in permanent low medical category the Re-categorisation, Medical Board has to be faced every two years and this was also the process adopted in the case of the petitioner. 19. The petitioner has then urged that against the categorisation to SHAPE-S. 2 dated January 11, 1984, he had preferred a complaint to the Central Government on March 2, 1984, but the objections raised by him were not taken into account before he W3S directed to face the Re-Categorisation Medical Board on December 19, 1985. This again is not quite correct. Copy of the complaint made by the petitioner on March 2, 1984, is placed an Annexure-V to the cornier-Affidavit filed for the respondents on September 19, 1986, in reply to the amendment application on the petitioners side. We have looked into the same. This complaint is concluded by the petitioner in the following language: "In conclusion, 1 first pray that my legally upheld and valid medical classification of SHAPE-1 with effect 2 September, 77 be unconditionally restored to me to obviate the above said Court proceedings in the matter. We have looked into the same. This complaint is concluded by the petitioner in the following language: "In conclusion, 1 first pray that my legally upheld and valid medical classification of SHAPE-1 with effect 2 September, 77 be unconditionally restored to me to obviate the above said Court proceedings in the matter. In case of difficulty, however, 1 next pray that 1 be meanwhile granted a Review Medical Board under the provisions of para 475 of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 1962 for rightfully challenging the opinion of the Medical Board proceedings dated 11 January, 1984 in my respect." 20. This shows that in the complaint the petitioner has prayed for Review Medical Board being set up wherein the veracity of the categorisation dated January 11, 1984, could be tested. Strangely enough when the Re-categorisation Medical Boards report dated December 19, 1985, has not been to the liking of the petitioner, he has turned round and assailed convening of that Medical Board its if. Paragraph 475 of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 1962, which the petitioner has extracted 26 of the application, which he made for amendment to the writ petition provides as under : 473 Review Medical Board : The Review Medical Board will be convened by the Directorate General Armed Forces Medical Services at Pune/Delhi on the specific request of Service Headquarters or the Ministry of Defence when a opinion of a previous Medical Board is challenged by an individual and the Service Headquarters concerned or the Ministry of Defence consider there is some weight in the challenge. The findings of the Review Medical Board will be accepted as final after approved by Director General Armed Forces Medical Services. No further appeal will be entertained by the Service Headquarters or the Ministry of Defence. In each case the Review Medical Board will be convened with the prior approval of the Ministry of Defence. The composition of the Review Medical Board will be as under : Pune : President Commandant, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. Members 1. Professor or Surgery, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. 2. Professor of Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College Pune. 3. Any Service Medical Officer required by the President. 4. Any Civil specialist or consultant required by the President. Delhi : ** ** ** ** ** Note. Members 1. Professor or Surgery, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. 2. Professor of Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College Pune. 3. Any Service Medical Officer required by the President. 4. Any Civil specialist or consultant required by the President. Delhi : ** ** ** ** ** Note. - Either or both of these Members will be co-opted when specially required. 21. Challenge having been made by the petitioner against the previous Medical Boards opinion dated January 11, 1984, and there being a complaint on this score to the Central Government under Section 27 of the Army Act it was open to the Central Government under Paragraph 475 to direct the Re-categorisation Medical Board to meet and consider the petitioners case. The Board is composed of highly responsible personnel of long experience and considerable expertise. Nothing placed on the record leads us to infer the existence of bias on the part of the member constituting the Board or that they may have proceeded on extraneous considerations in categorising the petitioner as of SHAPE-S. 2 and not S.I. Allegations, which the petitioner has sought to make against the competence or independence of Lieutenant Colonel I. P. S. Valdiya, Reader in Psychiatry, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, are on their face, of little worth not justifying specific mention, with his rejoinder the petitioner has placed some affidavits purporting to be of medical opinion were possible, that would serve to undermine or negative the effect or reliability of the categorisation which the Medical Board, Pune made on December 19, 1985. The categorisation thus made is open to periodical review which may take place in or about December, 1987 and there is no basis to doubt that in case the petitioner is placed in higher category, his claim for further promotion would also be reconsidered under the rules. 22. Assuming, as submitted by the petitioner, that the order of the Supreme Court dated October 29, 1984, did not conclude the controversy in relation to the compliance to the requirements under the judgment dated August 10, 1983, we fine that even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. His contention that there be extension granted to him taking into account the period during which he remained deprived of the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel is clearly untenable. His contention that there be extension granted to him taking into account the period during which he remained deprived of the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel is clearly untenable. For the period during he remained deprived of this rank there is compensation allowed to him in terms of money in the sense that he has been paid the differential in the pay and allowances which he will have drawn had be been placed in this rank throughout. We are not referred to any rules, orders or circulars, which may justify extension in military service on the footing as this. The claim then that there be damages paid to the petitioner for the loss of reputation is too remote to admit of acceptance nor may the Supreme Court be deemed to have made provision for any such damages in its order dated August 10, 1983. There is no dispute that the differential in the pay and allowance has been paid to the petitioner. He has claimed interest also over and above the same which is without the legal base. In the matter of advancement or future promotion the hurdle chiefly is due to the petitioner being placed in lower category of SHAPE-S. 2, which, as discussed above, rests upon the opinion of the Re-categorisation Medical Board dated December 19, 1985 that was convened in terms of Paragraph 475 and as also prayed for by the petitioner in his complaint dated March 2, 1984. The employment in appropriate non criteria appointment is interlinked with the Medical Categorisation. 23. Regard being had to the discussion made above, we find no merit in this petition, which, accordingly, is dismissed. There will, however, be, in the circumstances, no order as to costs.