Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.5 Applicant therefore made another grievance Petition dated 05.11.2014 citing discrimination meted out to him as other similarly situated individuals were granted special leave or medical treatment in respect of "on duty accident". The said grievance petition is still pending.

2.6 In the meantime, the applicant filed Petition in the Court of Commissioner for Physically Disabled (CCPD), New Delhi on 26.08.2013 being Case No. 396/1024/2013. This irked the respondents and became reason for creation of official malice. 2.7 Applicant in respect of his non promotion to the post of Scientist 'B, 'C' and 'D' has filed OA No. 3761 of 2013 before Principal Bench of this Tribunal. Filing of the said OA also created bias in the minds of the respondents against him.

20. In the meantime, the applicant approached the Commissioner for physically disabled (CCPD) on 26.08.2013 following the above denial for issue of disability certificate. It transpires that on the intervention of CCPD applicant's case came up for reconsideration before respondents. Thereafter, a medical certificate dated 30.01.2014 having validity up to 30.01.2015 was issued certifying disability of L/H upper limb weakness upto 55% disability, stating also that the medical condition is `temporary not progressive and likely to improve till the next reassessment'. The above information emerges from the 2nd grievance petition/bills is/are still kept pending, dt. 5.11.2014 before CPGMS, in which it is alleged by the applicant that his petition is still kept pending notwithstanding the orders of CCPD, and issue of certificate of 30.1.2014. It is also alleged that the applicant has been discriminated against, even as other similarly situated persons were given a favourable treatment.

24. It is to be noted that following CCPD's intervention a valid disability certificate was issued on 30.1.2014 (valid till 30.1.2015) R-3's actions, including ignoring/not paying heed to, the above disability/medical certificate of competent authority, R-3 still recommended applicant's transfer as the only option without any attempt to redress the grievance of applicant. He failed to follow up, on the other alternative, of initiating disciplinary proceedings, as proposed by R-2/vigilance. By non-production of records, R-2 was prevented from taking the proposal for disciplinary action to its logical conclusion and the transfer proposal remained dormant. R-3 persisted in obstructing a right course of action (between 2014 to 2016), suggested by R-2 and did not relent till his earlier recommendation of July, 2014 for transfer of applicant bore fruit with R-2 in March, 2016, when R- 4's proposal for applicant's transfer through R-3, was approved by R-2 and the impugned order was passed.