Remanded

Raj Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/2219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Review Medical Board's decision declaring the petitioner unfit due to hypertension. It directed the Board to re-examine the petitioner in a hospital following specific procedural clauses of an Office Memorandum within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Review Medical Board proceedings dated December 28, 2023; directed fresh medical examination in compliance with Office Memorandum clause 7(e) within six weeks.

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

¶1

$~62

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 2219/2024 RAJ MISHRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Atul, Mr. Kartik Yadav and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocates and Mr. Gokul Sharma, GP

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

O R D E R % 15.02.2024

¶7

CM APPL. 9215/2024

¶8

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶9

Application is disposed of.

¶10

W.P.(C) 2219/2024 & CM APPL. 9216/2024

¶11

This petition lays a challenge to the decision of the Medical Board/Review Medical Board declaring the petitioner unfit for appointment on the ground that the petitioner is suffering from “hypertension”.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw our attention to the Office Memorandum dated May 31, 2021 more specifically annexure-A of the said Memorandum, Clause 7(e) whereof reads as under:-

¶13

7. Following examples are cited for the guidance of Review Medical Board:-

¶14

e) For candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should be admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate’s

¶15

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 22/02/2024 at 12:55:53

¶16

fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases X-Ray and electrocardiographic examinations of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc, tests should also be carried out.”

¶17

According to him, before the Medical Board declared the petitioner unfit candidate it should have first admitted the petitioner in a hospital for observation. The submission is that neither the Medical Board nor the Review Medical Board had followed the above procedure before concluding that the petitioner is “unfit” on the ground of “hypertension”.

¶18

The aforesaid position is not contested by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶19

If that be so, we set aside the proceedings of the Review Medical Board dated December 28, 2023 with a further direction that the Review Medical Board shall carry out the Medical Examination of the petitioner, afresh in the manner stipulated in the OM dated May 31, 2021 more specifically clause 7(e) which is reproduced above, and take action thereof in accordance with law. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks as an outer limit.

¶20

The decision taken by the Review Medical Board shall be communicated to the petitioner to enable him to seek such remedy as available in law if the order is to his prejudice.

¶21

Petition is disposed of.

¶22

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶23

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶24

FEBRUARY 15, 2024/rr

¶25

Raj Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Lal Vallath Vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Anr.

Ms Jeewan Lata Sud Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 16(1), Delhi & Ors.

Salim Kujur and Ors. Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Anr.

Times Internet Limited Vs Pcit, DELHI-7 and Ors.

Shyam Prakash Vs Directorate of Vigilance & Anr.

Reebok India Company Vs Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Gaurav Singh Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle No 31(1) & Anr.

Jagmohan Kapoor Vs Mamta Kapoor

Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sumit Kumar Vs Union of India through Its Secretary & Ors.

Harsh Pandey Vs Union of India & Ors.

Surender Vs Union of India & Ors.

Suraj Rawat Vs Union of India & Ors.