Order This appeal is admitted and be listed for hearing in the third week of January, 2009. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been discharging duties as Constable in Border Security Force and had faced an encounter with the terrorists in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, after which he suffered grievous injury on both his legs and also suffered paralytic stroke at the age of 28 years. Thereafter, he was engaged as a Typist to discharge duties in the office of the Training Centre & School, Border Security Force, Hazaribagh, but suddenly he was saddled with an order, removing him from service on the ground that he had already received compensation and was then boarded out of service. 3. Counsel for the appellant assailed the order of removal from service relying upon a circular dated 28th May, 1992, contained in Annexure-13 in response to the rejoinder filed by the appellant, indicating that even if a Government servant is retained in service, he can be held eligible to receive compensation alongwith the alternative job offered to him. 4. Counsel for the respondent-Union of India, however, submitted that the aforesaid circular cannot be held applicable with retrospective effect. 5. Prima facie, we do not find any substance in the plea of the respondent Union of India for the appellant had already been absorbed in the desk job and was discharging duties as a Typist. He has practically lost both his legs while encountering with the terrorists in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and he suffered the aforesaid grievous injury only at the age of 28 years and even now, he is only aged 39 years, who can duly discharge duties at the desk work as a Typist. 6. Counsel for the appellant has also invited the attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, indicating that the patient, i.e. the appellant, is fit to keep himself busy by doing desk work by modification of the working place and the appellant was advised to sit on his wheel chair and move freely at his workplace. 7. Under the circumstance, we find no justification for the respondents to remove the appellant arbitrarily from the service of the desk work, which he was discharging as a Typist. 7. Under the circumstance, we find no justification for the respondents to remove the appellant arbitrarily from the service of the desk work, which he was discharging as a Typist. We, therefore, deem it just and appropriate to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 24.1 .2005, by which he was restrained from discharging his duties as a Typist, which he had been duly discharging for the last 12 years. Thus, the respondents shall permit the appellant to discharge duties as a Typist which he was earlier discharging on the same terms and conditions which was applicable to him, till further orders.