JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner was in Army service. He was put under Low Medical Category in the year 1991 but on humanitarian ground allowed to continue in service till he completed 15 years of service, which entitles him to pension on discharge. He was accordingly relieved on ground of Low Medical Category on 31 st August, 2004. Petitioner has challenged this on the ground that in terms of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Protection) Act, 1995, he could not be discharged and in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India since reported in (2003) 4 SCC 524 , he had to be adjusted in some other proper position. He has sought direction in this regard from this Court. 2. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of disability, respondents got useful work from him for over 13 years then what was the necessity of discharging him now. The same nature of work still be taken, which could support the petitioner and his family members fully. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Army submits that person of Low Medical Category are not desirable persons in the Army because Army cannot carry disabled persons. He fairly accepts that the decision of the Apex Court is to the contrary. He fairly points out to the decision of the Army taken in 2007-08, wherein in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court it has now been decided that persons with Low Medical Category could not be discharged rather people with Low Medical Category could be reinstated in service, subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. 4. It is not in dispute that so far as petitioner is concerned, he could fulfil the conditions and is thus entitled to reinstatement. 5. Having considered the matter and considered the judgment of the Supreme Court aforesaid, in my view, the relieve of the petitioner from service is not valid even before the petitioner was relieved from service, the Apex Courts judgment has been delivered. Relieve order, in views of the judgment of the Supreme Court, as referred to above, cannot be justified. He is thus liable to be reinstated. 6. The relieve order of the petitioner is thus quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. Relieve order, in views of the judgment of the Supreme Court, as referred to above, cannot be justified. He is thus liable to be reinstated. 6. The relieve order of the petitioner is thus quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. I may also refer to a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass & Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board since reported in 2008(3) All India Services Law Journal 1. As it has been found that relieving of the petitioner was not lawful it would be deemed that on reinstatement, petitioner be deemed to be in continued service for all purposes without break. The terminal benefit granted to the petitioner would be recovered from the amount payable to the petitioner in respect of past services which becomes due and payable now, and if anything is left thereafter, it shall be recovered in reasonable instalments from his current salary. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petitions stands disposed of.