Partly allowed

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Jai Prakash

Patna HC20 Feb 2013L.P.A/1323/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by CRPF against an order directing the appellant to employ a disabled trainee on light duty. The Court held the petitioner had no right to service as a trainee and was unsuitable for a para-military force, but awarded ad hoc compensation for the injury sustained.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to ad hoc compensation of Rupee One Lakh within six weeks, with 10% per annum interest from 4th April 2013 if unpaid. Appeal otherwise allowed.

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Jai Prakash — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1323 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 301 of 2009 With Interlocutory Application No. 5629 of 2012 In

¶3

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1323 of 2012.

¶4

====================================================== 1. The Union of India through Commandant, Recruitment Cell, C.R.P.F., Mokamaghat, District - Patna

¶5

Commandant, Recruitment Cell, Central Reserve Police Force, Mokamaghat, District - Patna

¶6

D.I.G.P., Group Centre, C.R.P.F. Sushrutnagar, Siliguri, District - Darjeelinng, West Bengal, Pin - 730412

¶7

.... .... Appellants / Respondents. Versus

¶8

Jai Prakash, Son of Shri Ram Dhani Singh, Resident of Village - Daulatpur, P.O. - Dakra, P.S. - Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad

¶9

.... .... Petitioner / Respondent ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, CGC. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶10

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶11

3 20-02-2013 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 5629 of 2012. The delay of 130 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1323 of 2012.

¶12

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16^th February 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC

¶13

Patna High Court LPA No.1323 of 2012 (3) dt.20-02-2013

¶14

¶15

No. 301 of 2009, the respondent Union of India has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

¶16

Pursuant to his selection for appointment as Constable under the Central Reserve Police Force, the respondent-writ petitioner was sent for training. While under training, in course of duty the petitioner suffered injury leading to loss of vision in one eye. On account of complete loss of vision in one eye, the petitioner has been discharged from service on 28^th November 2008.

¶17

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 301 of 2009. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and has directed the appellant to consider employment of the petitioner on some light duty. Therefore, this Appeal.

¶18

Learned advocate Mr. Sarva Deo Singh has appeared for the appellant. He states that on account of complete loss of vision in one eye the petitioner cannot be appointed in CRPF, a para military force.

¶19

We do agree with Mr. Sarva Deo Singh. At first, we may note that the petitioner was a trainee Constable and was not yet appointed as a Constable. No right or privilege has accrued to the petitioner on account of his being a trainee Constable. Further CRPF, for appointment to which the petitioner was selected, being a para military force, the petitioner, if not suitable for appointment as a Constable on account of his disability, he cannot be inducted to the said service even on compassionate grounds. At the most, the petitioner can claim compensation for the permanent injury suffered by him.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal.

¶21

Patna High Court LPA No.1323 of 2012 (3) dt.20-02-2013

¶22

¶23

The impugned judgment and order dated 16^th February 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 301 of 2009 is set aside.

¶24

CWJC No. 301 of 2009 is allowed to the extent that the appellant Central Reserve Police Force will pay ad hoc compensation of Rupee One Lakh to the petitioner within six weeks from today. In the event, the appellants fail to pay the compensation as directed, the petitioner will, commencing from 4^th April 2013, also be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 10% per annum till the date of payment.

¶25

It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from claiming compensation under the common law. In the event any decree for compensation is passed in favour of the petitioner, the aforesaid sum of Rupee One Lakh will be adjusted against the decreetal amount.

¶26

Subject to the above direction, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶27

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶28

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶29

Dilip.

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Jai Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Jai Prakash

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

The State Of Bihar and Anr. Vs Raghu Banshi Pd. and Ors.

Ravi Kumar Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rabindra Nath Pandey and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jahangir Ansari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Binod Baitha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.