SHAILENDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was enrolled as a constable under the BSF during the year 1987. During militant action while he was deployed in Jammu and Kashmir, he sustained injury on 10.9.1992. A duly constituted medical board declared him unfit on 11.6.1999 on the ground that he was 100% disabled. Consequently, he was retired from service due to physical unfitness on 10.11.1999 under the provisions of Rule 25F of the BSF Act 1969, with all benefits, except the pension since had had allegedly refused to sign the pensionary papers.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that after his reinstatement in service pursuant to the earlier order of the High Court and subsequently on his filing another writ application claiming compensation of the lump sum amount, the respondents had borne a grudge against him and had intentionally constituted a fresh Medical Board and had produced him before the Medical Board knowing fully well that on an earlier occasion, the Board had examined and declared him 100% disabled. Such action on the part of the respondents was deliberate and only for the purpose of creating a ground for terminating the services of the petitioner.

(3.) MR . S.N. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that even though the petitioner was found to be 100% disabled, but the benefit of section 47 of the Disability Act makes it obligatory on the part of the respondents to shift the petitioner to some other post with the same pay and the service benefits. The respondents could not therefore dispense with the petitioners services only on the ground that he had suffered 100% disability. Elaborating the grounds, learned counsel explains that the plea of the respondents that from the provisions of section 47 of the Disability Act, BSF has been exempted, is misleading and cannot be of any advantage to the respondents. Leaned counsel explains that by resorting to the provisions of Rule 25 of the BSF Rules the respondents had earlier terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground of his disability. Later, pursuant to the order of the High Court and by extending the benefit of section 47 of the Disability Act, the petitioner was reinstated in service as a Typist in May, 2002. Under the notification of the Central Government, exemption of BSF from the provision of section 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 was notified in September, 2002. Prior to the said notification, the petitioner was in service after reinstatement and therefore the subsequent withdrawal of the provisions of section 47 of the Disability Act from being applicable to the BSF could not be applied with retrospective effect.