JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order dated 26.04.2022 made in W.P.No.25006 of 2015.) D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 26.04.2022 in W.P.No.25006 of 2015 in and by which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and quashed the order dated 27.07.2015 medically invalidating the respondent and consequently directed the appellants to refer his case to the Departmental Rehabilitation Board which is constituted under the Standing Order No.04/2011 bearing Ref. No.P.III.I/2011-Welfare dated 27.07.2011. Aggrieved by the said direction, the respondents in the writ petition viz., C.R.P.F. is on appeal. 2. Heard Mr.C.Samivel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.P.Mohanraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there are three categories of disabled personnel which is clear from Standing Order No.2. The respondent herein belongs to third category i.e., 'those who are disabled due to psychiatric diseases'. As he is unfit for any job, he was medically invalidated out from service. He would submit that the third category of persons could not be referred to Departmental Rehabilitation Board constituted under the Standing Order. 4. After considering the grounds raised by the appellants on the previous occasion, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the appellants to produce the posting details of the respondent, more specifically in the light of the pleadings, that when the respondent was posted in Assam, he proceeded on ten days extraordinary leave, when he developed some abnormal behaviour and reported for treatment along with his parents at Composite Hospital, Avadi on 23.03.2009. In this background, the following details are presented before us by the learned counsel for the appellants: Sl.No. Content of Your Email Clarification 1 Where are the places Chelladurai rendered service? Posting particulars of the petitioner is as under: Unit / Office Location From To 142 BN (Basic Training) Avadi, Chennai 19/04/2003 17/05/2004 142 BN Verinag, J&K 17/05/2004 15/06/2007 142 BN Jonaki Nagar, Assam 15/06/2007 14/09/2011 GC Avadi Avadi, Chennai 19/09/2011 28/07/2015 2 Which is the last place he worked? Petitioner Invalidated out from service w.e.f. 28/07/2015 while he was posted in Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai. 3 How long one can render service (normal service period)? Petitioner Invalidated out from service w.e.f. 28/07/2015 while he was posted in Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai. 3 How long one can render service (normal service period)? As per Ministry of Home Affairs OM No.F.N.45020/1/2019/Legal-1 dated 19/08/2019 ( Copy enclosed ) retirement age of an Para Military personnel is 60 years. 5. It can be seen from the above that the respondent was recruited to the C.R.P.F. on 19.04.2003 and after undergoing training at Avadi, Chennai until 17.05.2004, he was posted at Jammu and Kashmir from 17.05.2004 upto 15.06.2007 and again from 15.06.2007, he was posted at Janaki Nagar, Assam. It can be seen that only while he was working at Assam, in the year 2009, his psychiatric disablement has started surfacing. It is ex facie clear that the ailment of the respondent was on account of the nature of job the personnel of C.R.P.F. performed especially when they are posted in border States such as Jammu and Kashmir and Assam. In that view of the matter, on the face of it, we reject the stand of the appellants that while the respondent proceeded on leave for ten days, he developed abnormal behaviour. The appellants should be alive to these kind of sufferings of the personnel posted in border States, especially far away from their homes. The appellants themselves have framed Standing Order No.04 of 2011 which clearly categorises the personnel with disablement. It is useful to extract Clause 2 of the said Standing Order: “2.The Department has three categories of disabled personnel:- (A) Those who are disabled due to injuries sustained in action against terrorists/ anti social elements/ insurgents/ naxalites/ while maintaining law & order/ internal security/ undergoing training or on any other bonafide duty. (B)Those who are disabled due to sickness/ accident. (C)Those who are disabled due to psychiatric diseases.” 6. It can be seen on a plain reading of Clause 2 of Standing Order No.04/2011 itself that three categories of disablement including those who are disabled due to psychiatric diseases also come within the category of 'disabled personnel' and as per Clauses 5 and 6, all disabled personnel should be referred to the Departmental Rehabilitation Board. It can be seen on a plain reading of Clause 2 of Standing Order No.04/2011 itself that three categories of disablement including those who are disabled due to psychiatric diseases also come within the category of 'disabled personnel' and as per Clauses 5 and 6, all disabled personnel should be referred to the Departmental Rehabilitation Board. It is only the Board which has to consider taking into account the physical disablement or the psychiatric disablement, whether he would be fit for any job which is mentioned in Clauses 7 and 8 of the said Standing Order and if only said person is not fit for those jobs, the procedure of medical invalidation would arise. In this case, the mandatory requirement of the Standing Order to refer the respondent herein to the Board was not done and therefore the learned single Judge was right in setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition and giving a direction to refer him before the Departmental Rehabilitation Board. 7. Further, we would also like to add that in a case of this nature, even if the Departmental Rehabilitation Board opines that he is not fit for any job which is mentioned in Clauses 7 and 8 of the Standing Order, which exercise, according to us, will be undertaken by the Departmental Rehabilitation Board dispassionately, the personnel like the respondent cannot be left high and dry and have to be compensated / treated appropriately. 8. In that view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal. This appeal is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.