DHARAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dharam Chand through present writ filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force-respondent No. 2 to voluntarily retire him under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme after completion of more than twenty years' service.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that petitioner was enrolled as Sepoy in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF') on March 4, 1968. He was promoted to the post of Lns. Naik in the year 1981. It is stated that he had been working with full zeal and to the entire satisfaction of his officers and in lieu thereof he was again promoted as Naik in the year 1985. After his promotion aforesaid, he was posted at Mani Majra, Chandigarh (U.T.). He felt pain in his head and got himself medically checked up from the General Hospital. He remained under medical treatment for six months. As per advice of the doctors, he was not to undertake any hard duty. He, however, after six months joined his duty. In the year 1986, the Battalion in which he had been working was shifted to Amritsar from where he proceeded on leave for one month. His leave having expired, to again joined the Battalion which was shifted to Chandigarh. He, however, developed some problem and was again admitted in Emergency at Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh on Dec. 6, 1986. On Dec. 19, 1986 he was operated upon and the doctors found him suffering from Neurocysticercosis disease. After his treatment, he again joined his duty but as his problem aggravated, he was again admitted to P.G.I. in Dec., 1988. Since he was not improving so as to do his duties with full devotion, he was left with no choice but for to make an application for his voluntary retirement. This request was made by him vide registered letter dated Jan. 23, 1989. It was mentioned therein that due to pain in brain he had to undergo an operation of head and, therefore, he was unable to continue his services. A request was ultimately made to grant him voluntary retirement pension. Meanwhile, respondents vide letter dated March 6, 1989 directed him to appear before the Medical Board. On account of his medical check up and the opinion of the doctors, he was declared completely and permanently in capacitated for further service and that being so. He was invalidated from service and was according to be paid pension.

(3.) The sole grouse of petitioner is that when he had served for continuous period of more than twenty years and he had asked for voluntary retirement, even if during service he was incapacitated as opined by the doctors, respondents could not invalidate him in service and pay him pension accordingly. An indefeasible right had accrued to him to ask for voluntary retirement after twenty years service and even through in one of the letters addressed to the respondents after he was invalidated from service, he had prayed that he may be given pensions as admittedly to a person who has been invalidated in service, it was his first request for voluntary retirement which should have been considered.