Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr vs The Union Of India & 3 Ors on 19 August, 2016

Sk Nausad Rahaman vs Union Of India on 10 March, 2022

49 The other ground of challenge which has been raised is that the impugned circular does not take into account the needs of disabled persons in the State’s workforce. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 is a statutory mandate for recognizing the principle of reasonable accommodation for the disabled members of society. This obligation has been elaborated upon in several decisions of this Court including Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others 32, Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency and Others 33 and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal and Another v. Union of India and Others 34.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 152 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Hariom S/O Babulal Meena vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2022

49. The other ground of challenge which has been raised is that the impugned circular does not take into account the needs of disabled persons in the State's workforce. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 is a statutory mandate for recognizing the principle of reasonable accommodation for the disabled members of society. This obligation has been elaborated upon in several decisions of this Court including Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others, Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency and Others and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal and Another v. Union of India and Others.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Munesh Kumar S/O Babu Lal Meena vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2022

49. The other ground of challenge which has been raised is that the impugned circular does not take into account the needs of disabled persons in the State's workforce. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 is a statutory mandate for recognizing the principle of reasonable accommodation for the disabled members of society. This obligation has been elaborated upon in several decisions of this Court including Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others, Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency and Others and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal and Another v. Union of India and Others.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Bibi Naima vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 22 February, 2023

5. A look at The Mental Health Act, 1987 and The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 reflects various provisions provided for protection to be provided to a person who is mentally sick. These acts incorporates every scope of protection of human rights and other natural rights of a mentally ill person. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. As reported in 2023 (2) SCC 209 has as under :
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Bharathkumar vs The Deputy General Manager (B & O) on 25 July, 2024

17. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents stoutly contended that Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal's case [cited supra] will not applicable to the facts of the present case, as it was the case where the delinquent employee developed a mental health disorder, subsequent to the appointment and that such mental condition had direct nexus with the misconduct. Only in that context, it was held that the punishment imposed on the delinquent is liable to be set aside. Here, the facts are altogether different and distinguishable from the precedents referred by the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - 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
1   2 3 4 Next