- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 11 June 2020
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 3461/2020
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J. JUNE 11, 2020 'gsr'..
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th June, 2020 + DHIREN KUMAR MOHANTY .... PETITIONER Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Harish V. Shankar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.12275/2020 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptionsand as per relevant rules. 2. The application is disposed of. 3. This petition, which has come up today for the first time for admission, seeks, (i) issuance of a writ of certiorari to the respondents Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for quashing the orders dated 10th June, 2016, 21st May, 2019 and 1st June, 2019 whereby the respondents rejected the representations dated 8th January, 2016 and 10th May, 2019 of the petitioner; and, (ii) issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to apply Paras 4.16 and 4.17 of the Standing Order No.04/2008 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and to promote the petitioner from the date his batchmates were promoted i.e. 21st August, 2012 and to count that period for all consequential benefits (and to grant the same relief as granted vide order dated 13th December, 2018 in W.P.(C) No.11263/2015 titled as Venkatesh Vs. Union of India). 4. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Commandant in the respondents CRPF in the year 2005; (ii) the petitioner, in order to enhance his career prospects, in the year 2009 opted for deputation to National Security Guards (NSG); (iii) the petitioner, on being selected for deputation, underwent NSG conversion training with effect from 30th June, 2009; (iv) however on 17th July, 2009, during the said training, the petitioner sustained spinal injury; (v) after undergoing treatment, the medical condition of the petitioner was reviewed and the petitioner was placed in P2(T) medical category for four weeks; (vi) the injury sustained by the petitioner was investigated by a Court of Inquiry and vide order dated 2nd September, 2011, the Court of Inquiry held that the injury caused to the petitioner was neither intentional nor due to own negligence of the petitioner and happened while undergoing training and on government duty; (vii) on 6th November, 2010, the condition of the petitioner was again reviewed and the medical category of the petitioner was downgraded to P3(P); (viii) as per Standing Order No.04/2008 of MHA with regard to Instructions for Medical Examination with respect to individuals placed in Permanent Low Medical Category, the individual is to be reviewed after two years; however early review can be requested provided the individual's condition has improved materially; (ix) in accordance with the aforesaid Standing Order, since the petitioner on 6th November, 2010 was placed in P3(P) category, his next Review Medical Board was due on 6th/5th November, 2012; (x) the respondents, on 26th December, 2011 requested the Inspector General / Director General to conduct a premature medical review of the petitioner since his health condition was improving day-by-day; however no Medical Board was constituted to review the health condition of the petitioner; (xi) as per the Gradation List issued as on 1st January, 2012 of Assistant Commandants, the petitioner was placed at serial no.158 whereas his immediate junior as well as senior were placed at serial nos.160 and 157 respectively; (xii) the petitioner, in the year 2012, was due for his next promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant and Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the same was held on 30th July, 2012, for the vacancy year 2012-13; (xiii) the respondents, vide order dated 21st August, 2012 issued a list of officers including the persons below the petitioner in seniority, who were promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant; the name of the petitioner was excluded from the said list, for the reason that the petiti
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.