Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (5.99 seconds)
Documents citing Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr vs The Union Of India & 3 Ors on 19 August, 2016

Lalit Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2025

26. After having discussed the relevant provision of the Act and the Apex Court observation made in Ravinder Kumar (Supra) case, the documents placed on record by petitioner relating to his mental illness needs to be considered. The first document filed as Annexure P-3 appears to be a prescription dated 05.02.2016, wherein the petitioner is diagnosed Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 15 with Bipolar Affective Disorder. However, this document is not on a letter head of any doctor/hospital and has not even signed by anyone. The document filed as Annexure P-4 is dated 21.01.2019, wherein against the petitioner's name certain medicines are prescribed but it does not certify about any illness. The document filed at page 121 has diagnosed petitioner with Broncitis. Similar is the case with documents filed at page No.122, 123, 124 & 125 where BPAD is not diagnosed. The documents filed as Annexure P-9 to P-11 also does not certify petitioner's BPAD illness and have been considered by enquiry officer. Annexure P-14 is again a prescription of private doctor and does not mention about BPAD. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Raj Kumar Singh of Bulandshahar also cannot be accepted as it has been obtained on 19.11.2021 for treatment given about 2 1/2 years back. Rest of the documents relates to referring the petitioner to AIIMS, New Delhi by GC, Gwalior which have been considered and discussed by enquiry officer.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalit Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2025

26. After having discussed the relevant provision of the Act and the Apex Court observation made in Ravinder Kumar (Supra) case, the documents placed on record by petitioner relating to his mental illness needs to be considered. The first document filed as Annexure P-3 appears to be a prescription dated 05.02.2016, wherein the petitioner is diagnosed Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 15 with Bipolar Affective Disorder. However, this document is not on a letter head of any doctor/hospital and has not even signed by anyone. The document filed as Annexure P-4 is dated 21.01.2019, wherein against the petitioner's name certain medicines are prescribed but it does not certify about any illness. The document filed at page 121 has diagnosed petitioner with Broncitis. Similar is the case with documents filed at page No.122, 123, 124 & 125 where BPAD is not diagnosed. The documents filed as Annexure P-9 to P-11 also does not certify petitioner's BPAD illness and have been considered by enquiry officer. Annexure P-14 is again a prescription of private doctor and does not mention about BPAD. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Raj Kumar Singh of Bulandshahar also cannot be accepted as it has been obtained on 19.11.2021 for treatment given about 2 1/2 years back. Rest of the documents relates to referring the petitioner to AIIMS, New Delhi by GC, Gwalior which have been considered and discussed by enquiry officer.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalit Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2025

26. After having discussed the relevant provision of the Act and the Apex Court observation made in Ravinder Kumar (Supra) case, the documents placed on record by petitioner relating to his mental illness needs to be considered. The first document filed as Annexure P-3 appears to be a prescription dated 05.02.2016, wherein the petitioner is diagnosed Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 15 with Bipolar Affective Disorder. However, this document is not on a letter head of any doctor/hospital and has not even signed by anyone. The document filed as Annexure P-4 is dated 21.01.2019, wherein against the petitioner's name certain medicines are prescribed but it does not certify about any illness. The document filed at page 121 has diagnosed petitioner with Broncitis. Similar is the case with documents filed at page No.122, 123, 124 & 125 where BPAD is not diagnosed. The documents filed as Annexure P-9 to P-11 also does not certify petitioner's BPAD illness and have been considered by enquiry officer. Annexure P-14 is again a prescription of private doctor and does not mention about BPAD. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Raj Kumar Singh of Bulandshahar also cannot be accepted as it has been obtained on 19.11.2021 for treatment given about 2 1/2 years back. Rest of the documents relates to referring the petitioner to AIIMS, New Delhi by GC, Gwalior which have been considered and discussed by enquiry officer.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalit Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2025

26. After having discussed the relevant provision of the Act and the Apex Court observation made in Ravinder Kumar (Supra) case, the documents placed on record by petitioner relating to his mental illness needs to be considered. The first document filed as Annexure P-3 appears to be a prescription dated 05.02.2016, wherein the petitioner is diagnosed Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 15 with Bipolar Affective Disorder. However, this document is not on a letter head of any doctor/hospital and has not even signed by anyone. The document filed as Annexure P-4 is dated 21.01.2019, wherein against the petitioner's name certain medicines are prescribed but it does not certify about any illness. The document filed at page 121 has diagnosed petitioner with Broncitis. Similar is the case with documents filed at page No.122, 123, 124 & 125 where BPAD is not diagnosed. The documents filed as Annexure P-9 to P-11 also does not certify petitioner's BPAD illness and have been considered by enquiry officer. Annexure P-14 is again a prescription of private doctor and does not mention about BPAD. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Raj Kumar Singh of Bulandshahar also cannot be accepted as it has been obtained on 19.11.2021 for treatment given about 2 1/2 years back. Rest of the documents relates to referring the petitioner to AIIMS, New Delhi by GC, Gwalior which have been considered and discussed by enquiry officer.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Podder vs Ministry Of Railway on 26 June, 2025

In reply to the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) is not applicable in the present set of facts as according to learned counsel in the aforesaid case initiation of disciplinary proceedings and misconduct was the subject matter of an employee concerned. However, in the present case, the order of compulsory retirement is an administrative order based upon overall performance of the applicant in service tenure in public interest and after the order of compulsory retirement the applicant is entitle to Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prem Pal Gupta Through Lrs. Smt. Kalpana vs Govt. Of Nctd on 3 July, 2025

5.4 In Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1293 1293, the Apex Court had held that the right of the Government to exempt establishments to not discriminate against persons with disabilities under Section 3(3) of the RPwD Act, 2016 is not absolute and is subject to a proportionality analysis. The facets of non-discrimination non discrimination that guide the PwD Act, 1995 are not restricted in their applicability to Section 47 of the PwD Act, 1995. It further held that while Section 47 is considerably narrower than Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act 2016, nonetheless, the overarching principle of substantive equality mandated the Government to provide reasonable accommodation to persons affected by any kind of disability, even under under the PwD Act, 1995, especially when the disability was acquired during the course of the employment. The Government was additionally obligated to shift such an employee who acquired a disability to a suitable position with the same pay scale and benefits. 16 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 5.5 The applicant sustained a severe spinal injury on duty on 23.07.2012, resulting in 100% permanent disability affecting his lower limbs and vital bodily functions. The department continued to pay his salary until 31.08.2013. However, from 01.09.2013 onward, onward, the payment of his salary was stopped on the grounds that he had exhausted all types of leave available to him under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. The department, in its reply dated 12.12.2013 stated that further paid leave could no not be granted unless the applicant was eligible for special disability leave, and even that was limited by the relevant rules.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Upadhaya vs Uoi And Ors on 8 August, 2025

61. Further reliance was placed by the petitioner on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (Supra). In Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1024/2010 Page 24 of 27 Signed By:SHILPI Signing Date:08.08.2025 20:04:16 that case, the Court held that "the duty of providing reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities is sacrosanct" and that "all possible alternatives must be considered before ordering dismissal from service." In our view, this obligation was adequately discharged in the present case. The petitioner was kept under medical observation, treated by both civil and BSF hospitals, and only upon being found mentally fit was he subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Laljee vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 September, 2025

Similarly, in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India and others, the Court reaffirmed that reasonable accommodation is a means to achieve substantive equality, and obligates the employer to assess each case individually, based on the employee's residual functional ability and not just on formal disability classifications. 35. When a disability is acquired in the course of service, the legal framework must respond not with exclusion but with adjustment. The duty of a public employer is not merely to discharge functionaries, but to preserve human potential where it continues to exist. The law does not permit the severance of service by the stroke of a medical certificate without first exhausting the possibility of meaningful redeployment. Such obligation is not rooted in compassion, but in constitutional discipline and statutory expectation."
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Moin - Full Document
1   2 Next