Remanded

Rajesh Nath v. the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014WP(C)/3218/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala noted that the petitioner was proposed for discharge from CRPF service due to mental illness before completing 10 years of service. The Court directed the respondents to reassess the case, allowing the petitioner to submit medical records. A medical board is to be constituted, and a final decision is mandated within three months after hearing the petiti

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to submit a representation with medical records; respondents to constitute a medical board and decide finally within three months after hearing the petitioner.

Rajesh Nath Vs the Deputy Inspector General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 3218 of 2011 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

RAJESH NATH, NO.015241702, CT/GD, 51 BN, PRESENTLY ON ATTACHMENT TO GROUP CENTRE PALLIPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL

¶9

SRI.S.VISHNU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRPF, GROUP CENTRE, PALLIPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 316.

¶12

2. THE COMMANDANT, 51 BN, CRPF, HALLOMAJRA, CHANDIGARH-160002.

¶13

3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CRPF, JUBILEE HILLS, MLA/MP COLONY HYDERABAD-500 033.

¶14

4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,

¶15

CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-1.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

...2/-

¶20

WP(C).No. 3218 of 2011 (B)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT.P1	: COPY OF THE PSYCHOMETRY TEST OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE CLINICAL NOTES OF CRPF BASE/GROUP HOSPITAL OF PETITIONER.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE MEDICAL BOOK RECORDING OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 31.12.2010.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.1.2011 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.1.2011 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE CLINICAL HISTORY SHEET OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. P.III.3/2011-EC-2/51 DATED JUNE/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

¶25

ANNEXURE R1(a) : COPY OF THE STANDING ORDER NO. 7/99 (RELEVANT PAGES)

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

¶28

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶29

W.P.(C) No.3218 of 2011

¶30

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2014

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner has come up before this Court when the respondents decided to sent the petitioner out of service before he has completed 10 years of qualifying service on the ground that he was suffering from fixed anxiety syndrome.

¶33

The petitioner entered service under the respondents in the year 2001. He was due to complete 10 years of qualifying service in August 2011.

¶34

The petitioner alleges that since he married in the year 2005 which went bad later and consequently he had to face civil cases filed by his wife. Therefore, he was upset and slightly depressed. He alleges that though he was subjected to medical examination, it

¶35

WPC No.3218/2011 2

¶36

was found that the petitioner does not require any active treatment.

¶37

The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents not satisfied with the report, sent the petitioner for medical examination and he was asked to sign papers which contained certain findings of the medical board, without showing the contents. He alleges that he represented before the competent authorities to give him a copy of the medical board's findings. However, the same was not given and therefore, he moved the Director General pointing out that he was compelled to go out of service before he completed 10 years of qualifying service which would mean that the petitioner would not get the minimum pensionary benefits. The petitioner alleges that he has also produced medical records from the Government Hospital, Vandanam to show that he is not suffering from any disease.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶39

WPC No.3218/2011 3

¶40

petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶41

Admittedly, the petitioner is proposed to be sent out of service on account of some mental illness. However, no further action was taken on account of the pendency of this writ petition.

¶42

Though the learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is not mentally fit to continue in the job, as the petitioner has produced certain documents in support of his case, this Court feels that the case of the petitioner requires a re-look by the respondents.

¶43

Therefore, the petitioner may make a representation along with medical records relied on by him before the respondents within a period of one month.

¶44

In the event of filing such a representation, the respondents shall constitute a medical board of their choice and the petitioner shall be subjected to medical examination. After assessing the report

¶45

WPC No.3218/2011 4

¶46

produced by the petitioner as well as the Medical Board, a final decision shall be taken within a period

¶47

of three months thereafter, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶48

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

Sd/-A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶50

css/ true copy

¶51

P.S.TO JUDGE

Rajesh Nath v. the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Nath v. the Deputy Inspector General of Police

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

Kunhikanaran Vs Edacherry Co-Operative Rural Housing Society Ltd.

Manafudeen Vs the Government of Kerala

Beeran Vs Ambalavayal Panchayat

Anitha.K.a Vs State of Kerala

E.V. Shajan Vs Regional Transport Authority Thrissur &

Pradeep.P Vs General Manager