Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme 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"]

Similar News