Disposed

Vivek Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/10625/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding the petitioner's employment as a Constable in the ITBP, the court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination in a Government Hospital other than an ITBP facility within four weeks, rejecting the need for transfer but acknowledging the necessity of a fresh medical opinion.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to get the petitioner examined by any Government Hospital within four weeks by an independent Medical Board; copy of proceedings to be furnished.

Vivek Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 10625/2024

¶4

VIVEK KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Raghunath Pathak & Ms.Shweta Priya, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Naginder Benipal, Ms.Arpita Rawat & Mr.Ankit Siwach, Advs. with Mr.Devender Singh, DC, JAG.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR O R D E R % 02.08.2024

¶9

The petitioner, who is working as a Constable/Barber in the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent no.2 to get a Medical Board constituted by an independent Hospital in Delhi so as to ascertain his present medical condition. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to immediately transfer him from the 41^st Battalion, where he is presently posted and claims to being harassed by his superior officers on account of his earlier approaching this Court regarding denial of MACP to him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that the petitioner was examined by a duly constituted

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 10:08:52

¶12

Medical Board held on 06.11.2023 and was found not fit for service in the Armed Forces and thereby the respondents are proposing to take action based on the same against the petitioner as per Rules. He is, however, not in a position to explain as to why no action has been taken for over the last eight months during which period the petitioner continued to be detailed for all kinds of duties.

¶13

In the light of this plea of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the very fact that the petitioner is being deployed for duties despite the purported medical opinion that he is unfit for further retention in service, in itself shows that the opinion of the Medical Board is erroneous. He, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to get the petitioner medically examined by an independent Medical Board to ascertain his present medical condition.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, even though we find no reason to accept the petitioner’s prayer for posting him out of 41^st Bn, there is merit in his plea that he should be medically re-examined and that too by a Medical Board other than that of the ITBP.

¶15

We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to get the petitioner examined by any Government Hospital, other than an ITBP hospital, within a period of four weeks from today. A copy of the said medical examination proceedings along with a copy of the Medical Board proceedings held on 06.11.2023 will be furnished to the petitioner as also his learned counsel.

¶16

¶17

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶18

REKHA PALLI, J

¶19

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶20

AUGUST 2, 2024 kk

¶21

Vivek Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paper Mate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi & Ors.

Misha Textiles Private Limited (through Director) Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1) Delhi & Ors.

Smt. Savita Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited

Avinder Bindra Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Fairfield Institute of Management and Technology Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shri Bhagwan Sahay Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Smt. Renu Bisht Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajiv Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Kalpana Kumari through Sita Ram Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ajay Kishor Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Daya Kishan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manoj Dhyani Vs Union of India and Others

Kamal Bhasin Vs Ghanshyam Kumar