Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Consider disabled CPO personnel for alternative employment within the force

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court, in Constable Gajendra Prashad Vs UOI, has directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to frame a rehabilitation policy to retain disabled personnel in less exacting duties which do not involve active combat roles.

Following are some excerpts from the progressive judgement which would have far-reaching consequences in all uniformed services :

“It is not in dispute that the medical disability of the petitioner which was opined in the year 2001 continues to be the same and there is no deterioration in the physique or the health of the petitioner. In fact, we must confess, that when the petitioner stood up in court on 4.3.2011 when we heard arguments in the writ petition, we saw him more smart in his turn out vis-à-vis other constables of para-military forces we see in court, who appear before us as litigants, but even as the security personnel deputed in the Delhi High Court complex. Not an inch of fat or flab on the stomach; a slim and trim jawan with a perfect body stood up when we wanted to see the petitioner. Indeed, learned counsel for the respondents was constrained to admit that notwithstanding the loss of a limb, the petitioner has kept himself more than physically fit and we are informed that the petitioner joins the morning drill at the Unit and ensures that his sedentary duties do not make him either dull or a flabby person.”

“The petitioner suffered the disability which placed him in Low Medical Category while performing duties in a hostile condition and there was logic and reason to let the petitioner serve, if he could, on a job where the department lost nothing. Since constables perform duties of a company clerk, why would it be that a physically fit jawan be made to do said duties and not a physically handicapped jawan. It would be a win-win situation. Physically fit jawans would be available for combat duties and those with disabilities, but not of a kind to render them totally unfit, could be accommodate on desk duties. This win-win situation would be in harmony with the concept of a welfare state, which India proclaims to be.”

“We find that the medical board opinion qua the petitioner rendered in the year 2007 continues to be the same as it was in the year 2001. The physical health or the condition of the petitioner has not deteriorated. The disability continues to be the amputation of the right lower limb above the knee and amputation of the left greater toe. If, on the same disability the petitioner was found fit to be adjusted against a lighter duty, we see no reason why he should be boarded out after 6 years. We highlight that the medical board opinion in the year 2007 does not certify or opined that the petitioner was in such Low Medical Category that he could not even perform the duties of a company clerk. Now, jawans are needed to perform wide and varied duties. These may be actual combat. These may be duty as a Sentry at a post. These may be duty in a recreational room. These may be duty as a telephone operator. These may be duty as the dak clerk. Thus, it stands to logic and reason and hence would be a part of fairness in action, a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution, to be observed by the State, that a lowly paid constable at the lowest rung of a Central Para-Military Force who is rendered physically disabled while on active service should be retained in service unless found unfit for any kind of job assigned to constables.”


Anonymous said...

A real good news.
Should be applied to all uniformed services at all levels.

Harry said...

Hail Hon'able Delhi High Court !!!

S.Kanthiah said...

Dear Sir,

You have brought a touching article. An EYE opener . A justice to the disabled soldier in less percentage and able to discharge duties other than combat duties. there are so many civilians are employed in desk duties, why not our soldier. Hats off Sir.
Please accept my sincere thanks for publishing the article.

Exwel Trust, Tirunelveli-Dist, Tamil Nadu

viswa said...

Navdeep Sir. many thanks to you once again for the article of alternative duty for disabled personnel in security forces as directed by Delhi High court. I can add bit of my past experience specially in army where I have seen that our own higher officers are very insensitive to this issue . As usual your article is to the point,lucid and bereft of emotions.
Biswajit De ex/sgt from kolkata

Anonymous said...

I donot find any reason for the disabled constable to approach the hnourable High court which should have been his right as per PWDEA act 1995. But i am worried about the attitude of the babus who rule the CPOs and Army HQ.

Anonymous said...

Ultimately after a long wait,PCDA(P) circular No 456 dated 18-3-11 has appeared on their website publishing details of casualty awards for pre 1-1-06 pensioners/family pensioners; as per MOD letter dated 15-2-11 ( already published on this post by Maj Navdeep).
Now it is the turn of PDAs to effect the actual disbursement, which hopefully is likely to be by the end of April 11.

Anonymous said...

Most of our ESM are not very well aware about various pension entitlements; specially when it comes to family pensions.
Major Navdeep or any well versed reader may like to educate on this subject.
If we ESM ; are well aware ,then only we may be able to advise our families to be able to claim their dues correctly.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,

This is not understanding that,what is X group. X group has been more benificerry by the circular no 456 pcda Allahabad, dated 18th march 2011. A Nb/Sub render 21 years Service,and a Nb/Sub render 15 years service. Appliying by X group,15 years N/Sub has more benificery. Rs 1400 been added for X group for NB/Sub 15 years. What is difference between rendered 15 years ans 20 years colour service for N/Sub. It is requested please update soon.

Thank you sir.