LAWS(P&H)-1997-8-184

RANJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Decided On August 06, 1997
RANJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is presently posted as Assistant Commandant, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Pinjore, Haryana in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of Part II and III of order dated 10.7.1996, copy Annexure P-5 to the Writ Petition which reads Part II

(2.) The case of the petitioner as set up in the writ petition is that he was taken ill and was referred to Medical Hospital for treatment where his ailment was diagnosed as Prolaps Inter Vertebra Disc. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital and remained as indoor patient with effect from 2.11.1994 to 27.12.1994 when he was discharged. He was again admitted in the hospital and remained as indoor patient with effect from 20.2.1995 to 24 .4.1995. At the time of discharge from the hospital, he was declared fit to join duty but was advised to perform light duty. On examination at medical Hospital Jammu, the doctor recommended rest to the petitioner with effect from 26.6.1995 to 31.7.1995. Therefore, the petitioner applied for leave and the same was sanctioned. After obtaining fitness certificate from the Medical College, Jammu, the petitioner submitted joining report. In the fitness certificate, the medical authorities recommended that the petitioner was to perform light duty with 'Lumber Belt' and to avoid exercise and long walk. On 24.9.1995, in the Annual Range Classification Firing of Special Cadre Course, the petitioner while crossing the Nala at Nagrota Firing Range received injuries. He was hospitalised. However, respondent No. 3 while considering the fitness certificate as not complete ordered that the petitioner be not treated on duty whereas he was factually on duty and stopped his salary with effect from Oct., 1995.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that when the petitioner was discharged from the hospital, he joined his duties. He further contends that the petitioner received injuries while on duty but he has not been paid his salary.