Delhi High Court - Orders
Gian Kaur vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 December, 2020
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3461/2019
GIAN KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Alakh Alok Srivastava, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 15.12.2020 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] CM No. 32620-21/2020 (for exemptions)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
CM No. 32619/2020 (of the petitioner for urgent interim directions)
3. This application has been filed, pleading (i) that the respondents Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), after issuance of notice of this petition, on 16th April, 2019 reinstated the son of the petitioner into service and which fact was brought to the notice of this Court; (ii) that on being taken back into service, the son of the petitioner joined duty; (iii) that however thereafter, vide letter dated 16th November, 2020, the respondents CRPF have informed the petitioner's son that he has been found to be suffering from a case of Bipolar Affective Disorder with psychotic features since 2012 and that if he fails to submit his application/appeal against the W.P.(C) 3461/2019 Page 1 of 3 findings of the Invalidation Board, along with the Medical Certificate of a Medical Officer whose rank must not be less than Civil Surgeon, within 30 days i.e., on or before 16th December, 2020, the son of the petitioner will be invalidated out from the respondents CRPF; (iv) that though the petitioner/her son applied for leave, to be able to get the son of the petitioner medically examined and to obtain the Certificate from the Medical Officer about his medical status, but the leave was refused; and, (v) that thereby the respondents CRPF have made the right conferred of appeal against the findings of the Invalidation Board, infructuous. This application is filed seeking stay of the communication dated 16th November, 2020 till final adjudication.
4. We have informed the counsel for the petitioner/applicant that granting a stay of the communication dated 16th November, 2020 would tantamount to stay of invalidating out of the son of the petitioner, thereby imposing the son of the petitioner, who has been found to be medically unfit, on the respondents CRPF and the respondents CRPF would then also be required to continue to pay the emoluments to the son of the petitioner and which cannot be recovered back in the event of the petition ultimately failing.
5. All that can be done is, to observe that if the son of the petitioner is invalidated out, the time for filing appeal shall stand extended by 30 days from the date the son of the petitioner is invalidated out.
6. If the petitioner/her son prefer an appeal within the said period of 30 days, the same shall be considered on merits and decision taken communicated to the petitioner/her son.
7. We have also enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether W.P.(C) 3461/2019 Page 2 of 3 the petitioner wants to carry out the amendments to the writ petition in terms of what is pleaded in this application.
8. The counsel for the petitioner states that amendments will be carried out and application in that regard would be filed within two weeks.
9. In view of the aforesaid, there is no need to call for a reply to this application or to keep this application pending.
10. The application is disposed of, observing that if the son of the petitioner is invalidated out, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal, if any preferred by the petitioner/her son and the outcome of this writ petition.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ASHA MENON, J DECEMBER 15, 2020 SU W.P.(C) 3461/2019 Page 3 of 3