Dismissed

NO.731020797,INSPECTOR Steno v. Union of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2021WPC/1994/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order denying promotion to Assistant Commandant due to medical unfitness (non-SHAPE-I category), the single judge held that strict medical standards apply to Border Security Force personnel. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner had retired.

What did the court decide?

The writ application stands dismissed being devoid of merit.

NO.731020797,INSPECTOR Steno Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1994 of 2009

¶3

No.731020797, INSPECTOR (Steno), K. RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through it’s the Director General, Border Security Force, Force Head Quarter, C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi-3

¶7

The Inspector General (Training) Border Security Force Force Head Quarter, New Delhi

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General & Commandant, Training Centre & School, Border Security Force, Meru Camp, Hazaribagh ..... Respondents

¶9

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEDEEPAK ROSHAN --------For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate ---------

¶10

06/ 15.02.2021 Heard Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents through V.C.

¶11

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.12.2008 issued by the Directorate General Border Security Force, New Delhi whereby the promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Assistant Commandant (Private Secretary) and ACP has not been granted on the ground that the individual is not fit to be upgraded to the category SHAPE-I and thus Review Medical Board for reassessing the present medical category is not justified.

¶12

3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is totally violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play, ignoring the opinion of the cardiologist who has opined that the petitioner can perform all kinds of duty.

¶13

¶14

However, learned counsel fairly admits that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2010; as such, the monetary benefit, if any, can be extended to him.

¶15

4. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-BSF submits that there is no error in the impugned order, inasmuch as, the respondents; apart from being disciplined force are for the purpose of border security; as such, health and physique of any of the personnel is most important, as such the rules are very stringent.

¶16

He further referred to the instruction issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which stipulates that SHAPE-I Medical Category will be an eligibility criteria for promotion to all Group ‘A’ level post in the GD stream. If such provision does not exist in the existing recruitment rules, steps may be taken to incorporate the same in the RRS. He further referred to Clause 3 of the said instruction which says that medical category SHAPE-I will be an essential eligibility condition for promotion of all combative personnel in all groups, rank and cadre in the CPMFs.

¶17

5. By referring to this instruction and the impugned order which is under challenge, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that being a force of such an importance, the rules are very stringent and there is no error in the impugned order. He further submits that even the medical report submitted by the petitioner clearly transpires that the said Doctor has opined that the petitioner does not show any “significant abnormality” but it is not a report that there is no abnormality. He contended that now the petitioner has already retired.

¶18

He further referred to Annexure - D which is the scheme for assured career progression and is applied in the case of the petitioner and as

¶19

¶20

per the said scheme it is clear that all promotion norms have to be fulfilled for up-gradation under the scheme, inasmuch as, in the case of eligible personnel, the prescribed PPC are to be qualified before they are considered by the DPC for up-gradation .

¶21

6. Having regards to the fact of the case and the instruction of the Ministry of Home Affairs it appears that SHAPE-I Medical Category is an eligibility criterion for promotion to all Group ‘A’ Level post in the GD stream. Further, it has been specifically instructed by the Ministry of Home Affairs that Medical Category SHAPE-I should be essential eligibility criteria for promotion of all combative personnel for all groups, rank and cadre in the CPMFs.

¶22

From the aforesaid instruction it further transpires that SHAPE-I medical category will be mandatory for the purpose of promotion to Group A post and in case whose fitness is not in SHAPE-I, they will not be considered for promotion by DPC but will be declared unfit for promotion, even if, they are otherwise fit for promotion. However, where the personnel whose illness is of temporary nature; after considering their cases for promotion along with others, if they are otherwise fit, the DPC will grade them as ‘fit for promotion’ subject to attainment of SHAPE-I Medical Category.

¶23

Thus, by going through the aforesaid instruction of Home Affairs it is crystal clear that the promotion criteria is very stringent and for obvious reason that this force is of extreme importance where health and physique is basic criterion.

¶24

The petitioner could not brought on record any substantial document which can transpire that the petitioner was in fact in SHAPE-I

¶25

¶26

rather his own medical certificate speaks that there is no significant abnormality and since it was a case of ‘Myocardial perfusion’ as such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner and above all, the petitioner has already retired and has received the entire benefits as per the ACP scheme

¶27

which has been annexed as Annexure D to this counter affidavit.

¶28

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant writ application stands dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

Pramanik/

NO.731020797,INSPECTOR Steno v. Union of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

NO.731020797,INSPECTOR Steno 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

Md.Manawar Ansari Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Amar Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prof.S.Wasi-Ur-Rab Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Satya Narayan Ram Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Hazra Khatoon and Anr. Vs Bharat Coaking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Deo Bhushan Prasad Vs Vinoba Bhave University And Ors.