Dismissed

Satish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/13369/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a dismissed writ petition, the High Court of Delhi observed that the petitioner should be medically re-examined regarding his hearing capacity within four weeks to determine the correct medical category due, and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Ordered medical re-examination of petitioner's hearing capacity within four weeks; subsequent action by respondents.

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

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

% Date of decision: January 11, 2024

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13369/2021

¶4

SATISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vineet Dhandha, CGSC

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayers: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to: -

¶12

(i) issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as unfit in medical category B-1 as hearing Aid is not permissible in this category and further to recommend him fit for alternative employment on Medical Ground in Medical Category Cye-One (C-1) and below as per IRMM 2000 Para 511 (4) (ii); and

¶13

(ii) direct the respondent No.2 to 3 to compensate the petitioner for his loss of salary of 3 months and paid leaves for a period of 15 months due to the delay in declaring petitioner as Fit on 19.08.2020; and

¶14

W.P.(C) 13369/2021

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 18:48:55

¶18

(iii) Pass any such other orders as it may deem fit to this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶19

In effect, the grievance of the petitioner is that for medical reasons he should have been downgraded to C-1 Category instead of B-1 Category.

¶20

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Regulations issued by the respondents, IRRM 2000 Para 511 (4) (ii), supports the case of the petitioner. He also states that, he shall be assigned duties as per his medical category.

¶21

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhanda, CGSC.

¶22

At this stage, Mr. Dhanda submits that the respondents shall again medically examine the petitioner more particularly with regard to his hearing capacity and act accordingly.

¶23

The above submission of Mr. Dhanda is agreeable to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

If that be so, the respondents shall medically examine the petitioner in respect of his hearing capacity and then act accordingly.

¶25

The aforesaid exercise must be carried out within four weeks as an outer limit. The date and time for the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board shall be intimated to the petitioner at least one week in advance.

¶26

It goes without saying, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondents, pursuant to medical examination, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek such remedy as available in law.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

W.P.(C) 13369/2021

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 18:48:55

¶31

With the above, the petition stands disposed of.

¶32

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶33

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶34

JANUARY 11, 2024/So

¶35

W.P.(C) 13369/2021

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Page 3 of 3

¶38

Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 18:48:55

Satish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

No 948664S Sergeant Kundan Vs Union of India and Ors.

969623L Sgt Bajinder Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Subhas Chandra Pandey

Surender Kumar Vs MCD & Ors.

Lal Chand Ranwa & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sandeep Singh Vs Government of NCT O Delhi & Ors.F

Mahendra Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Roop Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

No 948664S Sergeant Kundan Vs Union of India and Ors.

969623L Sgt Bajinder Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hemant Morya Vs Union of India and Others

Insp/Gd Ankit Kumar Tyagi Vs Director General Itbp

Sgt Rajeev Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ex Rect Naresh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.