Delhi High Court
Dalip Singh Yadav vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 December, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 18th December, 2009
+ W.P.(C) No. 13809/2009
DALIP SINGH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Devvrat, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. As per Service Rules of CISF the petitioner had a right to
prefer an appeal against the decision of the Medical Board and
require Review Medical Board to be convened and the petitioner
re-examined by the said Board.
2. Vide communication dated 24.07.2009, the petitioner was
communicated that he was found unfit at the medical
examination. It was brought to his notice that in case he is not
satisfied with the decision of the Medical Board, he was entitled
to prefer an appeal seeking constitution of a Review Medical
Board and if he so desires, he should tender Rs.25/- by means of
a demand draft.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal and sought re-
constitution of a Medical Board i.e. desired that a Review Medical
Board be constituted. He transmitted the appeal along with a
draft in sum of Rs.25/- by means of a Speed Post docket posted
from the Post Office, Narnaul, Haryana.
4. The record of the respondent shows that the Postal docket
was handed over to the Post Office at Narnaul on 18.08.2009 at
12:46 hours. This is evident from the postal receipt pastened on
the envelope. Whereas, with reference to a certificate obtained
by the Post Master, Narnaul that the docket in question was
delivered at the address notified on 21.08.2009, the record of the
respondent: namely the receipt register, shows that the docket
was received on 07.09.2009.
5. What has happened is that vide a communication dated
10.11.2009 the appeal filed by the petitioner seeking constitution
of a Review Medical Board has been rejected holding that the
appeal has been received beyond the one months' period
prescribed to file the appeal. We note that the limitation for filing
the appeal would expire on 23.08.2009 for the reason the original
order is dated 24.07.2009.
6. Unfortunately, the postal envelope which on the record of
the respondent does not bear the stamp of the delivering post
office i.e. the Central Post Office at New Delhi, within the
jurisdiction of which the office of the Appellate Authority i.e.,
Inspector General, CISF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi is
situated.
7. Thus, we have on record two documents wherefrom the
necessary inference has to be drawn.
8. The first is the certificate obtained by the petitioner from
the Post Master, Narnaul as per which the docket in question
was received at the Post Office, Narnaul on 18.08.2009 and was
delivered to the addressee on 21.08.2009. The second is receipt
register of the respondents showing that the docket concerned
was received on 07.09.2009.
9. The record of the respondents show that the docket was
received at the Post Office at Narnaul on 18.08.2009. It was
received to be delivered through Speed Post evidenced by a
receipt stuck on the envelope. Prima facie, it would be difficult to
believe that the docket for onward delivery through Speed Post
at Narnaul, a town which is hardly less than 100 kms from Delhi
would take 20 days to reach Delhi.
10. It is settled law that where a procedural law comes
into conflict with a substantive law, as long as the procedural law
permits it to be so read, every attempt should be made to read
the procedural law in a manner that substantive rights are
enforced.
11. Similarly, where competing evidence impinge upon a
procedural law, primacy must be given to such evidence which
furthers a substantive right.
12. Noting that the docket was handed over to the Post Master,
Narnaul on 18.08.2009 and the petitioner paid the requisite
charges for the docket to be transmitted by Speed Post; noting
further the certificate issued by the Post Master, Narnaul that the
docket was delivered to the addressee on 21.08.2009, we return
a finding that evidence probablizes that the docket was delivered
on 21.08.2009. There may be a possibility that the receipt clerk
has belatedly entered the receipt of the docket in the receipt
register.
13. We dispose of the writ petition holding that it would be
treated that the appeal filed by the petitioner seeking
constitution of the Review Medical Board has been received
within the limitation and consequently direct that within two
months from today a Review Medical Board be re-constituted
and the petitioner be examined before the Board. Needless to
state if the finding of the Review Medical Board is in favour of the
petitioner, needful would be done within four weeks thereafter. If
the decision of the Review Medical Board is against the
petitioner, he would be entitled to remedies as available in law.
14. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to learned counsel for
the petitioner and the respondents.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 18, 2009
'nks'
