1
OA No.3107/2018
Item No.39
CT-V
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.3107/2018
This the 20thday of February, 2023
HON’BLE MR. ANAND MATHUR, MEMBER (A)
HON’BLE Mr. MANISH GARG, MEMBER(J)
Ravinder Kumar
S/o Sh. Vijay Pal Singh
R/o Village Hadauli, Post Sisauli
Distt.Muzaffar Nagar
Uttar Pradesh – 251319.
Aged about 51 years, Group „C‟
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Vs.
1.
Commissioner of Police
PHQ, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2.
Principal, Police Training College
Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Yash Aggarwal for Ms. Sarita Agarwal)
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J)
The facts of the present case as highlighted by the
learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant
was
appointed
as
Constable
in
Delhi
Police
on
01.03.1993. After more than 20 years of service, he
2
applied for voluntary retirement which was accepted on
27.02.2014. The applicant was retired on 01.03.2014.
The applicant vide his application dated 30.03.2014
requested for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement
which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated
17.07.2014. The applicant again vide his applicant
dated 21.07.2014 made a request for his re-employment
under
Rule
29
of
Delhi
Police
(Appointment
&
Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The said request was
rejected
by
the
respondents
vide
order
dated
21.04.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed OA
No.1992/2015 before this Tribunal. The said OA was
disposed of directing the respondents to consider the
case of the applicant in light of Rule 29 of Delhi Police
Rules, 1980. The respondents considered the case of
the applicant under the said Rule but the applicant was
found medically unfit for re-employment. Hence, the
present OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a) Quash and set aside the impugned
orders/actions of the respondents placed at
Annexure A/1, A/2 and A/3 (to the extent of
illegal
clauses
contained
therein)
dated
01/08/2018,
25/06/2018
and
28/12/2017
respectively and
3
(b) Direct the respondents to re-employ the
applicant forthwith.”
The applicant challenges the Impugned Order and
makes a submission on following counts:
(i)
The Medical Rules which were amended during the
course of his service could not have been applied to the
applicant. The applicant was a colour blind at the time
of his initial appointment. It is well known that colour
blindness is by birth and was not a medical standard for
disqualification.
The
said
amended
rules
dated
25.06.2010 are reproduced as under:-
“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(a) of Sub-section (2) of section 147 of the
Delhi Police Ac, 1978 (34 of 1978), the
Administrator of the National Capital Territory
of Delhi is pleased to make the following rules
further to amend the Delhi Police (Appointment
and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, namely:-
Short title and commencement:(1)These rules
be called the Delhi Police (appointment and
Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2010.
(2) They shall come into force with effect from
the date of their publication in Delhi Gazette.
Amendment in Appendix to Rule 24 – In the
Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment)
Rules 1980, in the Appendix annexed thereto,
in clause (a), in sub-clause(i), after the words
„without glasses‟, the words shall be free from
colour blindness”, shall be inserted.”
4
3.
He further argues that the said amendment is
unconstitutional and no-nest in the eyes of law inasmuch
as the said amended rules were never placed before the
Parliament as mandated under Section 148 of The Delhi
Police Act, 1978 which reads as under:-
“(1) Every rule and regulation made under this Act shall
be made by notification in the Official Gazette.
(2) Every rule and regulation made under this Act shall
be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each
House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total
period of thirty days which may be comprised in one
session or in two or more successive sessions, and if,
before the expiry of the session immediately following
the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both
Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or
regulation, as the case may be, or both Houses agree
that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule
or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such
modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be;
so, however, that any such modification or annulment
shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under that rule or regulation.”
4.
He has also placed reliance upon the decision
rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex
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.