Ashim Kumar Banerjee ( 1 ) THE present case depicts a most unfortunate state of affairs for which the petitioner having no fault on his part had to suffer because of indifferent altitude on the part of the respondent authorities. The petitioner was working in central Industrial Security Force. He, while participating in an official game at durgapur, sustained injury. He was hospitalized and thereafter he was examined by the Medical Board where he was declared invalid for service. The authority now contends that there is no provision for his rehabilitation as earlier circular for rehabilitation has been revoked. Hence the writ petitioner is entitled, of his provident Fund and Gratuity for the period he was working in the organization. ( 2 ) STAND of the respondent authority cannot be conceived of. The writ petitioner participated in an official game meaning thereby he was on duty. He sustained injury during that period. It is nobody's case that such injury was due to his fault. Hence, I do not find any reason why the respondent authority would not take responsibility for his rehabilitation. ( 3 ) ON the last occasion, I directed the respondent authority to file an affidavit with regard to rehabilitation and compensation. To that, affidavit has been filed stating that since the petitioner did not challenge the order of the medical Board and since there is no provision for rehabilitation in the present rule the petitioner's prayer can not be acceded to. I am unable to accept the contention of the respondent to the extent where the respondent contended that petitioner should have challenged the Medical Board opinion. The petitioner admittedly sustained physical injury and Medical Board declared him unfit for service. There is no scope to challenge the Medical Boards opinion as according to him he had suffered injury. Only question remains that how he has to be rehabilitated and or compensated. ( 4 ) THE respondent authorities are directed to give appropriate compensation or rehabilitation taking into account the period of service which the petitioner could render had he been allowed to continued in service. Such decision must be taken within a period of four weeks from date and be communicated to the petitioner accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There would be no order as to costs. Writ petition is disposed