Disposed

Suresh Prasad Suresh Prasad v. Union of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2019WPC/3448/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging invalidation from CRPF service due to medical fitness. Court directed petitioner to file appeal within eight weeks before the competent authority to pass appropriate order after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal before competent authority within Eight Weeks; respondent to pass appropriate order after hearing.

Suresh Prasad Suresh Prasad Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3448 of 2009 Constable No.903022353 Suresh Prasad …… Petitioner

¶2

Versus

¶3

The Union of India, through DGP, CRPF,Delhi & Ors …. Respondents

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K.Verms, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC -----

¶6

14/Dated: 04/12/2019

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument has refereed Annexure- 6 at page-24 to the writ application which is an office order dated 30.04.2009 issued by DIGP, GC, CRPF, RRY, whereby the petitioner was invalidated out from service w.e.f. 30.04.2009 (AN) as per provisions contained in Rule 38 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 read with para 90(G) of Section VIII ofm CRPF Medical Manual and the GOI decision No.6 below para 4 of CCS ( Medical Examination ) Rules, 1957. He will also stand struck of strength of 83 Bn. CRPF from the same i.e. 30.04.2009(AN). Further, petitioner's intervening period rom 17.11.2007 to date of invalidation i.e. 30.04.2009 (AN) will be regularized as per his entitlement separately by commandant 83 Bn as per rules.

¶8

A counter affidavit dated 14.12.2009 was filed by the respondents, wherein at paragraph 17, it has been stated that petitioner had right parital gliotic changes, Epilepsy & 50% disability in his limbs due to Hemiplegiag.

¶9

A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner , wherein at paragraphs no.8 it has been stated that during the period 17.11.2007 to 30.04.2009, petitioner has regularly worked as Signal DAK Runner efficiently without trouble. Therefore, before passing termination order concern respondent has not considered whether petitioner is capable to do other job like Signal Dal Runner, when petitioner was working since 17.11.2007 on the vacant post.

¶10

Rule 28 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 provides the provision of appeal.

¶11

Be that as it may, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file appeal before the competent authority (respondent) within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of this order. Thereafter, the concerned respondent shall pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶12

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶13

Raman/

Suresh Prasad Suresh Prasad v. Union of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Prasad Suresh Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sylvester Kujur Vs Human Resources Department

Vikram Sharma Alias Vikaram Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Robert Malto Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Yasmin Khatoon And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bihari Manjhi Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Pawan Ram Vs Ranchi University Ranchi And Ors.