KAPIL DEV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged the communication issued by Directorate General, CRPF vide No. P-VII-6/2015. Pers.DA-2 dated 10th July, 2015, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of senior time scale has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was in S1H1A1P1E2 medical category due to injury sustained by him while playing cricket during game period. Relying upon para 4.17 of the standing order No.4 of 2008 read with definition of 'active duty' given in the CRPF Act, 1949, it was concluded by the respondents that the disability had been incurred by the petitioner while playing cricket during game period and not while being on active duty.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar issue was subject matter of consideration before the High Court of Delhi in the case of Venkatesh v. Union of India and other (WP(C) No.11263/2015), the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 13.12.2018 set at rest the controversy with regard to the actual meaning and import of the term 'active duty'.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of this case are entirely similar to the facts of the case before the Delhi High Court, in that, in the case before Delhi High Court the petitioner had suffered injury while playing the game of badminton during game period and in the instant case, the petitioner has suffered injury while playing cricket during the game period. Drawing similarity between the two cases, learned counsel for the petitioner urges this Court to allow the petition on the same analogy on which the petition of one Venkatesh was allowed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in terms of the judgment (supra). It is the further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Venkatesh (supra) has been implemented by the respondents.