“Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable POCSO | Absence of Medical Corroboration Not Fatal; Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Sufficient for Conviction: Orissa High Court Limitation Act | Article 137 Applies to Applications Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC; 3-Year Limit Cannot Be Rendered Illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Benami Defence Cannot Override Registered Ownership: Delhi High Court Buries 35-Year-Old Family Settlement Claim Over Property Dispute Off-Road Construction Vehicles Not ‘Motor Vehicles’ Under Law: Supreme Court Quashes Road Tax on Dumpers, Excavators, and Dozers

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