Madras High Court
R.Ranjith Kumar vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 7 November, 2019
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
W.P.No.10183 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07/11/2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.10183 of 2013
R.Ranjith Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force,
Avadi, Chennai - 600 065. ... Respondent
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned office order issued by the
respondent in No.P.III-1/2012-PEN-GC dated 15th March, 2012 and
the consequential order of the respondent in No.P.III-1/2012-GC-Pen
dated 28th March, 2013 and quash the same in so far as denial of
back wages is concerned and direct the respondent to grant back
wages for the period from 29.10.2010 (FN) (date of medical
invalidation) to 29.01.2012 (AN) (date of medical invalidation).
For petitioner ... Mr.P.Mohanraj
For respondent ... Mr.K.Gunasekar, SPCCG
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.10183 of 2013
------
ORDER
The instant writ petition is for a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 09.04.2014, passed by the respondent bearing No. No.P.III-1/2012-PEN-GC dated 15.03.2012 and quash the same, in so far as it denies the back wages to the petitioner from 22.10.2011 to 22.01.2014.
2. The petitioner joined in the Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai, as Constable. On 01.10.2004, while doing duty in Manipur, in an ambush, the petitioner suffered multiple injuries in his left forearm and thighs. He was treated in the Regional Medical Surgery Centre. He had undergo four major surgeries in his forearms. The petitioner recovered from his injuries and was given light duty. The petitioner directed to appear before the Medical Validation Board on 11.04.2011. The petitioner was medically invalidated on 22.10.2011. The petitioner sent the detailed representations, but it has not been considered. The petitioner challenged the order of medical invalidation by filing WP.No.24093 of 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.10183 of 2013 2011. It was the contention of the petitioner that as per the Standing Order No.7 of 1999, dated 06.05.1999, passed by the Directorate General CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. A person should gets medical disability due to injuries sustained while action against terrorists and anti-social elements, must be sent to the Departmental Rehabilitation Board and Board finds whether he can continue in the service providing lighter job. Then such officer should be rehabilitated.
4. This Court by its order dated 13.11.2013, allowed the writ petition. This Court found that medical invalidation order without following the procedure has laid down in the Standing Order No.7 of 1999 is not proper. This Court therefore directed to provide the petitioner an alternate lighter duty as stated in the Standing Order No.7 of 1999. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated in the service. However, the petitioner was denied wages from the date of invalidation. This portion of the order by which the petitioner was denied back wages is under challenge in the instant 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.10183 of 2013 writ petition.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to F.R.54(a)(3) and he should be paid full pay and allowances between the period of invalidation and reinstatement. It is stated that the principle of no work no pay cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, as the petitioner has already performs his duty and he was wrongly invalidated by the respondent.
6. The respondents have filed a counter stating that F.R.54(a)(3) is applicable only in the case of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and the same cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered injuries in action against terrorists. The order of medical validation against the petitioner was done without following Standing Order No.7 of 1999 dated 06.05.1999, passed by the Directorate General CRPF, CGO 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.10183 of 2013 Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Had the respondents followed the Standing Order, then the petitioner have been invalidated rather he would have been given lighter job. The petitioner was yet fault and the order of medical validation is completely contrary to the procedure ought to have been followed by the respondents. It can be said that injuries has been met out to the petitioner who suffered while serving for the mother land. The principle of no work no pay cannot apply in the facts of this case. The issue as to whether F.R.54(a)(3) would be applicable in case of the medical invalidation has been considered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C).No.489 of 2012, in the case of Anima Mondal Vs. Union of India, observed as under:-
"11. Mr. S. Janani, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the Fundamental Rule 54A(3). This rule reads as follows:-
“54. xxx (3) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.10183 of 2013 reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be.”
12. It is not disputed that the above Rule applies to the CRPF personnel. The Rules have postulated that if a person is wrongfully dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes. The Rule mandates that the personnel shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the said period to which she would have been entitled if such termination not intervened
13. A person who had been wrongfully invalidated from service would stand on a better footing than a person whose service has been terminated pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. On the principle contained in Fundamental Rule 54(3), the petitioner would also be entitled to full pay and allowances for the period to which he would have been entitled had he not been so invalidated. "
8. This Court does not find any reason not to adopt the same reason. This Court by its order dated 07.12.2006, found that the 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.10183 of 2013 order of medical invalidation is bad and had directed the petitioner herein, must be given a lighter duty in terms of the Standing Order No. 7 of 1999.
9. Writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay back wages from 22.10.2011 to 22.01.2014, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.
07/11/2017
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Pkn.
7/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.10183 of 2013
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
Pkn.
To
The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai - 600 065.
W.P.No.10183 of 2013
07/11/2019 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in