Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

Highly Unjustified and Unfair: Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside BSF Termination Over Post-Recruitment Illness

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the termination of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable, diagnosed with bone tuberculosis after his recruitment. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, presiding over the case, termed the termination as "highly unjustified and unfair."

The petitioner, Amarnath Ram, was removed from the BSF due to his medical condition, diagnosed after he had already been recruited. The court was called upon to examine the legality and fairness of this action.

"It seems to be highly unjustified and unfair to weed out an employee on the ground that he cannot complete basic training because of a disease which he has suffered post joining of service and it is a curable disease," Justice Bansal observed in his judgement.

In the course of the proceedings, it was revealed that there was a conflict between the medical report provided by PGI, Chandigarh, and the medical board of the respondent, BSF. The latter had declared Ram unfit for basic training, whereas PGI, Chandigarh had certified him fit for the job.

In the judgement, Justice Bansal also directed the BSF to "sympathetically reconsider the case of the petitioner for any post other than post of Constable," and to complete this reconsideration process within six months from the date of the judgment.

The case drew attention to various Supreme Court decisions that the petitioner relied upon, highlighting the unfairness of being terminated for a condition contracted after joining service.

Date of Decision: 02.09.2023

Amarnath Ram vs Union of India and others    

  

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Amarnath_Vs_UOI_02SEP23_P^0H.pdf"]

Latest Legal News