Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
No. 115330082 Ex Rt/Gd Mustaque Ahmed S/O- Harun Islam – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Rep. By The Secy. To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi And Ors. –Respondents
WP(C)/4606/2020
Decided On : 25-07-2024
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as a Constable in the CRPF, sustained injuries during training and was subsequently terminated from service on medical grounds. He challenged the termination and sought rehabilitation benefits under the relevant rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was a member of the force despite being a trainee and that the termination was not in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The Rehabilitation Board's rejection of his claim was deemed unsustainable.
Issues: Whether a trainee can be considered a member of the force and entitled to rehabilitation benefits; whether the termination was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, having been appointed and undergoing training, was a member of the force. The Rehabilitation Board's decision was flawed as it did not follow the proper procedures outlined in the relevant rules.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, striking down the Rehabilitation Board's decision and the termination order, and directed the employer to reconsider the petitioner's case for rehabilitation benefits.
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae, representing the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned CGC representing the Union of India.
2. This Court taking note of the issues involved, requested Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae. Accordingly, Mr. Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae, has advanced his argument.
3. Before adverting to the argument of Mr. Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae, let this Court first record the background facts of the present case as discernible from the facts pleaded by the parties.
II. Thereafter, on 11.01.2011, the petitioner joined his duty at Dayapur, Silchar. After joining, the petitioner was sent to the CRPF Training Center at Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh. Unfortunately, while undergoing training, the petitioner sustained injuries in both his knees and accordingly, he was admitted to Composite Hospital, CRPF at Neemuch on 22.12.2011. Subsequently, he was referred to Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi for further treatment on 30.12.2011. and thereafter, on 12.01.2012, he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi for better treatment. Subsequently, after certain treatment, he was discharged from Safdarjung Hospital on 23.01.2012, and again taken to Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi on 23.01.2021 and from there, he was discharged on 09.02.2012.
III. In the course of his treatment, the petitioner had been under supervision at Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi and on 26.03.2012 the petitioner was issued a medical certificate of fitness to resume his duty by the Authorized Medical Attendant, Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi and accordingly, he had resumed his duty in Neemuch but after two months, he again complained of pain on his left knee. Thereafter, the petitioner was again referred to Composite Hospital, New Delhi on 08.06.2012 from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital on 23.06.2012.
IV. After treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, the petitioner joined at Bilaspur but the petitioner, after attending training sessions for two months, again felt a recurrence of the pain in his left knee for which he was again referred to Composite Hospital, New Delhi on 05.09.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred to the Sports Injury Center, Safdarjung Hospital from the Composite Hospital, New Delhi. After receiving treatment at Safdarjung Hospital on 12.09.2012, the Composite Hospital, New Delhi issued a Fitness Certificate to the petitioner on 15.09.2012.
V. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Rajgir RTC-V 5 CRPF Training Center in Bihar and he was again sent back to Bilaspur Group Center, Chhattisgarh. In February 2013, the petitioner again felt pain in his left knee, while he was in his duty in Bilaspur. Accordingly, he was again referred to Composite Hospital, New Delhi on 06.02.2013. After treatment at Composite Hospital, New Delhi though, the petitioner did not get complete relief from his injuries but he was issued a Medical Fitness Certificate by Composite Hospital, New Delhi on 21.02.2013 and accordingly, he again joined in Bilaspur. But after 5 months, the petitioner again felt pain in both knees and accordingly was again referred to New Delhi and he was again treated at Sports Injury Centre, Safdarjung Hospital on 14.08.2013. After completion of the treatment of the petitioner conducted at Composite Hospital, New Delhi and Safdarjung Hospital, on 26.08.2013, a fitness certificate was issued by the Composite Hospital, New Delhi to resume his duty.
VI. After that, the petitioner resumed his duty at Bilaspur and while undergoing physical training, he again realized the pain in both knees for which, he was referred to Patna where an MRI of his right knee was conducted on 25.06.2014 but he did
A trainee appointed to the CRPF is considered a member of the force and is entitled to rehabilitation benefits if injured during training, regardless of the completion of training.
Termination of service under Sashastra Seema Bal Rules requires a discretionary assessment of individual circumstances, emphasizing that procedural compliance and inability due to external factors mu....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between disability pension and invalid pension under the CCS Pension Rules, emphasizing the eligibility criteria and the impact ....
The absence of attribution of disability to service by the Medical Board leads to a presumption of service-related disability, warranting the grant of Disability Pension.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resignation of a member of the CRPF should not be accepted hastily, disregarding the mandatory notice period, and the appointing authority....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
