Dismissed

Taranjit Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2011CWP/12644/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by combatized CRPF members challenging a circular declaring them unfit due to colour blindness. The court held that the petitions became infructuous as a Ministry of Home Affairs memo clarified that personnel recruited with colour blindness before 17.05.2002 are protected under an earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of as infructuous with liberty to petition competent authority for back-wages in accordance with Rules.

Taranjit Singh Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.12644 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2011

Taranjit Singh

VS.

Union of India & Ors. . . . . Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

¶15

Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate; Mr. Anil K Gahlawat, Advocate for UOI

¶16

¶17

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶18

(1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.12644, 16130 & 16939 of 2010 as common issues are involved. The petitioners are the Combatized members of the Central Reserve Police Force. They seek quashing of the Circular dated 29.10.2008 declaring them unfit for CRPF duties on account of their colour blindness which allegedly was never a condition for the employment. They also seek a direction for their promotion and consequential benefits which was withheld for the above-mentioned reason.

¶19

(2). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent-UOI has placed on record a memo dated 17.03.2011 along with a copy of the decision dated

¶20

2 –

¶21

CWP No.12644 of 2010.doc

¶22

11.03.2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs clarifying that “all such force personnel recruited with colour blindness prior to 17.5.2002 will continue to be governed by this Ministry’s UO No.I-45020/52/2001-PersII dated 17.5.2002” .

¶23

(3). The above-stated clarification takes care of the grievance of the petitioner(s).

¶24

(4). The writ petition(s) is/are accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous, however, with liberty to the petitioner (s) to represent to the competent authority for the grant of back-wages to them, in accordance with the Rules.

¶25

(5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶26

20.07.2011 vishal shonkar

¶27

(S u r y a K a n t) Judge

Taranjit Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taranjit Singh 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

Achhar Singh Toor Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Girdhari Lal Bansal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhdev Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sarvjit Singh Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr.

Amrik Singh Vs the Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.