Dushasan Pradhan vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1066 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            W.P.(C) No.8049/2011

%                        Date of Decision: 15.02.2012

Dushasan Pradhan                                             .... Petitioner

                       Through   Mr. Satya Saharawat, Advocate

                                  versus

Union of India & Ors.                                     .... Respondents

                       Through Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


ANIL KUMAR, J.

* The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the

parties.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 1st October,

2011 whereby the petitioner was struck of the strength from the unit on

account of Invalidation due to colour blindness. The petitioner has also

prayed for a direction to the respondent to reinstate him and grant all

consequential benefits from the date of invalidation.

An affidavit dated 6th January, 2012 was filed by the respondents

contending that the competent authority has accorded approval to

reinstate the petitioner in service. According to the respondents, the

directions were issued to the concerned officer at Bihar to reinstate the

petitioner immediately and to file action taken report in this regard.

Another affidavit dated 14th February, 2012 is also filed on behalf

of respondents contending inter-alia that pursuant to the approval

granted by the competent authority to reinstate the petitioner, a call

letter for rejoining the duties by the petitioner was issued at his home

address which was received by him.

It is further stated that the petitioner has reported for duty at 94

Battalion, CRPF, Hqr.Khunti, Jharkhand on 16th January, 2012. The

respondents have further asserted that since the petitioner has been

reinstated, the reliefs claimed in the writ petition have already been

received and the petition requires no further consideration.

The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions does not

dispute the statements made on behalf of respondents in respect of

petitioner.

In view of the facts disclosed by the parties, no further directions

are required in the writ petition and the writ petition is disposed of as

satisfied. Parties are, however, left to bear their own cost.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

FEBRUARY 15, 2012                     SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
'k'