Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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