N.Shiromani vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6073 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3473/2011


                                  Date of Decision: December 12, 2011


N. Shiromani                                         ..... Petitioner
                        Through   Mr. Rajat Soni, Advocate.


              versus


Union of India & Ors.                        ..... Respondents
                  Through    Ms. Anjana Gosain with Ms. Prerna
                  Shah, Advocates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

       CORAM:

       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. An additional affidavit dated 14.11.2011 has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 stating that the petitioner has to undergo a review board as per the instructions contained in letter dated 30.08.2011 before being considered for MACP and being eligible under it. It is further contented that pursuant to the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by this Court, the petitioner will be considered and granted MACP benefit in case he is found to have medical category Shape I.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner is ready to undergo review medical board in order to get ascertained whether he has medical category shape I or not.

3. Counsel for the respondent on instructions states that petitioner fulfills all other eligibility conditions contained in letter dated 30.8.2011 except not having medical category of Shape I and in case Review Board finds the medical category of petitioner as shape I, he will be entitled for benefits of MACP.

4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to hold a review medical board for the petitioner. In case the petitioner is found to have the medical category Shape I, then to grant him the MACP benefits in terms of the instructions contained in letter dated 30.8.2011.

5. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

6. Dasti.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

December 12, 2011 neelam