MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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