Disposed

Mandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Railway Protection Force constable injured on duty sought a direction to constitute a Medical Board to determine his medical fitness category. The court directed the respondents to constitute an Integrated Medical Board within four weeks, without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to constitute an Integrated Medical Board within four weeks to assess the petitioner's medical fitness category.

Mandeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Medical Negligence | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~70

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 15.01.2025

¶3

W.P.(C) 508/2025 MANDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Counsel (Appearance not given)

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sushil Raaja , SPC Mr.Gopesh Jindal, Ms.Anjali, Advs. for UOI

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶10

CM APPL. 2368/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 508/2025

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction to the respondents to constitute a Medical Board for determining the medical fitness category of the petitioner.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the Railway Protection Force as a Constable on 01.08.2015. On 09.06.2024, he suffered a crush injury on the right foot from a running train at the Kishan Ganj Railway Station, Delhi, and was subsequently issued a Disability Certificate dated 05.11.2024, which certifies as under:

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 508/2025 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 0.01.2025 19:04:48

¶18

“LOCOMOTOR DISABILITY=25% + PLASTIC & SURGERY DISABILITY=8% (LESS THAN 40%) AS PER GOVT GUIDELINES IN CAES OF MULTIPLE DISABILITY IF DISABILITY LESS THAN 25%= NOT ADD & IF DISABILITY FOUNDS LESS THAN 40% DISABILITY CERTIFICATE NOT ISSUED”

¶19

The petitioner asserts that the petitioner was thereafter examined at the Northern Railway Central Hospital, Basant Lane, Paharganj, Delhi, where it was directed that the petitioner be examined by an Integrated Medical Board. However, the Medical Board has not been constituted till now.

¶20

Issue notice. 6. Notice is accepted by Mr.Sushil Raaja, the learned counsel, on behalf of the respondents.

¶21

Keeping in view the nature of the relief prayed, we direct the respondents to constitute a Integrated Medical Board for assessing the medical status/fitness category of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today. The Medical Board shall keep in view the medical documents that have been filed by the petitioner along with the present petition, or any additional document that the petitioner may produce before it, before rendering its final opinion.

¶22

We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the averments made by the petitioner in the petition, and it shall be open to the Medical Board/respondents to decide the same. In case the petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the respondents, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

W.P.(C) 508/2025

¶26

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 0.01.2025 19:04:48

¶27

law.

¶28

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶30

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶31

JANUARY 15, 2025/sg/DG

¶32

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 508/2025 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 0.01.2025 19:04:48

Mandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pragati Defence Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Hyderabad Cable Digital Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Sewa Ram Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Sanrok Enterpreses Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28 (1) Delhi

Prakash Industries Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 30, Delhi & Anr.

M/S Royal Security Services Vs Jaipal Singh and Ors.

Fci Handling Workers Union Vs UOI & Anr.

Rajesh Gomes Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) and Ors.

Jushvir Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ex Const Crew Pramod Yadav Vs Union of India through & Ors.

Pankaj Tiwari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex Ct Cook Nitesh Kumar Chandrakar Vs Union of India and Others

Esaiya Kerketta Vs Union of India and Ors.

Raju Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.