T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH
AR-282 K Ram Bahadur Sunar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs – Respondent
Heard Mr. HG Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is approaching this Court for a judicious decision of his case. The matter in disputes between the parties is as to the procedure of regaining medical category of the petitioner as Shape-1 w.e.f. 24.10.2013. The parties stated that “Health Care System in Central Para-Military Forces” containing the instructions for medical examination and classification of personnel serving in the CPMF was issued vide MHA U.O. No. I.45024/3/2004-Pers-II dated 31.07.2007. The matter in issue in the present writ petition is to be decided on the basis of the said MHA U.O.; it will be more profitable to quote the relevant portions of the said MHA U.O. hereunder:-
“HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN CENTRAL PARA-MILITARY FORCES INSTRUCTIONS FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONNEL SERVING IN THE CPMF
(Issued vide this Ministry’s U.O. No. I.45024/3/2004-Pers-II dated 31/07/07)
APPENDICES
A. Declaration to be obtained from individuals before medical examination.
B. Health card format.
C. Proforma of medical examination report.
D. Proforma f
A.K. Kraipak & Ors v. Union of India & Ors : (1970) 1 SCR 457
Artemiou v. Procopiou (1966) 1 QB 878: (1965) 3 All ER 539
Atkinson v. United States of America Government: LR 1971 AC 197
B. Shankara Rao Badami v. State of Mysore : (1969) 3 SCR 1
Balram Kumawat v. Union of India : (2003) 7 SCC 628
Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors. : (2003) 2 SCC 111
Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr : (2007) 6 SCC 528
Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs. State of Assam & Ors : AIR 1978 SC 17)
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu : (1974) 2 SCR 348
Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys : (2011) 11 SCC 334).
H.S. Vankani & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors : (2010) 4 SCC 301
Inco Europe Ltd. v. First Choice Distribution (a firm): (2000) 1 WLR 586 : (2000) 2 All ER 109 (HL)]
Jones v. Wrotham Park Settled Estates :1980 AC 74: (1979) 2 WLR 132: (1979) 1 All ER 286 (HL)
K.L. Gupte v. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay: AIR 1968 SC 303: (1968) 1 SCR 274
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India : (1978) 1 SCC 248
Maruti Udyog LTd. V. Ram Lal : (2005) 2 SCC 638: 2005 SCC (L&S) 308
M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa : AIR 1961 SC 1107
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors : (2007) 7 SCC 309
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand : (2005) 3 SCC 551: 2005 SCC (Cri) 742
RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. : (1987) 1 SCC 424: AIR 1987 SC 1023
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. : (1987) 1 SCC 424
Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala [(1969) 1 SCR 317]
S.P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta: (1987) 1 SCC 191: AIR 1987 SC 222
State of Gujarat & Anr v. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retired) & Ors : (2013) 3 SCC 1
State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Santosh Shanker Acharya: (2000) 7 SCC 463
UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor: (2008) 5 SCC 257: (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 263
Union of India & Ors v. Tulsiram Patel: (1985) 3 SCC 398
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.