2011 (4) JLJR 223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bhola Kumar Jha …. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
W.P.(S) No.3199 of 2006
Decided on : 29.07.2011
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29th December,2004, issued by the respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner has been forced to retire from service on the alleged ground of physical unfitness w.e.f. 12th December,2004 under the purported provision of Rule 25 of the Boarder Security Force Rules,1969. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction on the respondents to permit him to continue in service and discharge his duty .
2. According to the petitioner, he had joined the services of Boarder Security Force on 23.2.1988. In course of service, the petitioner was posted in Jammu & Kashmir area. While the petitioner was on duty on 29.6.1995, he had sustained bomb blast injury in an attack by the militants and lost his right eye. He was shifted to hospital for treatment. After treatment, a Medical Board was constituted for assessment of his disability. The Medical Board found him 60% disable. In view of the said disability report of the Medical board, the petitioner was sent for rehabilitation training in the Indian Oil Corporation. After training, the respondent-authorities had recommended his name for posting in the Headquarter or in battalion 09 of the B.S.F. on medical ground, vide order on 8.8.1997.
3. Considering the petitioner's request and his disability, the respondents had posted the petitioner in the Training Center and School, B.S.F., Hazaribagh by order dated 10.1.1998. The petitioner joined the said Training Center. He was then sent for training, meant for disable B.S.F. Personnel. The petitioner had joined and successfully completed the training. The petitioner was then given movement order dated 31.7.2000 directing him to proceed permanently to resume his duty in Training Center and School, B.S.F., Hazaribagh. The petitioner, accordingly, had given his joining before the D.I.G. and Commandant, Training Center and School, B.S.F., Hazaribagh. His joining was accepted and he was directed to report and work under the Communication Officer of Training Center and School, B.S.F., Hazaribagh. The petitioner, accordingly had reported for duty and had been continuously working since thereafter.
4. Suddenly, he was served with the impugned order dated 29th December,2004 informing his pre-mature retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2004 on the ground that he is not physically fit to discharge his duty in the Force, in the opinion of the Medical Board.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the nature of his job was changed by the respondents from combatant to non-combatant, there was no occasion for the opinion of the Medical Board and for forcing the petitioner to retire on that ground.
6. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the right of a disabled member is protected under the provisions of section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(hereinafter referred to as Disability Act,1995). It has been submitted that considering the said legal provision, the petitioner's job was changed by the respondents from Combatant Personnel to non-Combatant Personnel and, as such, the ground that he is not fit for further service in the Force is irrelevant and contrary to the finding of the Medical Board(Annexure-C), brought on record by the respondents. In Column-15 of the said Medical Report, it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner is fit for civil service. As such, there was no occasion for retiring the petitioner, who had been already doing civil nature of job.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the petitioner's claim. It has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was medically examined by the Medical Board and his disability was assessed 70%. The petitioner was found unfit for service in the Force. It has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of section 47 of the Disabilities Act,1995 as the B.S
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.