Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 744 (JHR)

Bhola Kumar Jha v. Union of India

2011-07-29

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
Order In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29th December,2004, issued by the respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner has been forced to retire from service on the alleged ground of physical unfitness w.e.f. 12th December,2004 under the purported provision of Rule 25 of the Boarder Security Force Rules,1969. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction on the respondents to permit him to continue in service and discharge his duty . 2. According to the petitioner, he had joined the services of Boarder Security Force on 23.2.1988. In course of service, the petitioner was posted in Jammu & Kashmir area. While the petitioner was on duty on 29.6.1995, he had sustained bomb blast injury in an attack by the militants and lost his right eye. He was shifted to hospital for treatment. After treatment, a Medical Board was constituted for assessment of his disability. The Medical Board found him 60% disable. In view of the said disability report of the Medical board, the petitioner was sent for rehabilitation training in the Indian Oil Corporation. After training, the respondent-authorities had recommended his name for posting in the Headquarter or in battalion 09 of the B.S.F. on medical ground, vide order on 8.8.1997. 3. Considering the petitioner's request and his disability, the respondents had posted the petitioner in the Training Center and School, B.S.F., Hazaribagh by order dated 10.1.1998. The petitioner joined the said Training Center. He was then sent for training, meant for disable B.S.F. Personnel. The petitioner had joined and successfully completed the training. The petitioner was then given movement order dated 31.7.2000 directing him to proceed permanently to resume his duty in Training Center and School, B.S.F., Hazaribagh. The petitioner, accordingly, had given his joining before the D.I.G. and Commandant, Training Center and School, B.S.F., Hazaribagh. His joining was accepted and he was directed to report and work under the Communication Officer of Training Center and School, B.S.F., Hazaribagh. The petitioner, accordingly had reported for duty and had been continuously working since thereafter. 4. Suddenly, he was served with the impugned order dated 29th December,2004 informing his pre-mature retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2004 on the ground that he is not physically fit to discharge his duty in the Force, in the opinion of the Medical Board. 5. The petitioner, accordingly had reported for duty and had been continuously working since thereafter. 4. Suddenly, he was served with the impugned order dated 29th December,2004 informing his pre-mature retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2004 on the ground that he is not physically fit to discharge his duty in the Force, in the opinion of the Medical Board. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the nature of his job was changed by the respondents from combatant to non-combatant, there was no occasion for the opinion of the Medical Board and for forcing the petitioner to retire on that ground. 6. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the right of a disabled member is protected under the provisions of section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(hereinafter referred to as Disability Act,1995). It has been submitted that considering the said legal provision, the petitioner's job was changed by the respondents from Combatant Personnel to non-Combatant Personnel and, as such, the ground that he is not fit for further service in the Force is irrelevant and contrary to the finding of the Medical Board(Annexure-C), brought on record by the respondents. In Column-15 of the said Medical Report, it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner is fit for civil service. As such, there was no occasion for retiring the petitioner, who had been already doing civil nature of job. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the petitioner's claim. It has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was medically examined by the Medical Board and his disability was assessed 70%. The petitioner was found unfit for service in the Force. It has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of section 47 of the Disabilities Act,1995 as the B.S.F. has been exempted from the provision of the said Act, 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the facts and materials on record. 9. On perusal of the Gazette of India dated 10th September,2002, I find that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had issued a notification exempting all categories of combatant personnel from the provision of the said Disabilities Act, 1995. 10. However, the said notification does not change the situation in the instant case. 9. On perusal of the Gazette of India dated 10th September,2002, I find that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had issued a notification exempting all categories of combatant personnel from the provision of the said Disabilities Act, 1995. 10. However, the said notification does not change the situation in the instant case. The petitioner was given benefit of the said Act by shifting him to civil job much before issuance of the said notification in January,2001. Secondly, the said exemption is only for the Combatant Personnel. The notification is not made operative with retrospective effect and, as such, the same is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, who was posted at a non-Combatant post. From the report of the Medical Board, produced by the respondents, it is evident that the Board has found the petitioner fit for civil nature of service. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted and discharging civil nature of duty. The alleged ground for the petitioner's pre-mature retirement is unfounded and irrelevant and self defeating according to their own document of the respondents. 11. In view of the above, I find no legal ground for issuing the impugned order dated 29th December, 2004 forcing pre-mature retirement of the petitioner. 12. As a result, the impugned order dated 29th December, 2004, as contained in Annexure-10 is quashed. This writ petition is allowed. 13. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue his service on the civil nature of post, on which he was working since before the said order or on any other post of civil nature. Since the impugned order dated 29th December, 2004 is quashed, the petitioner is entitled for salary and other consequential benefits of the intervening period. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary with other admissible benefits to the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.